 |
|
| Send an Email Via Reply Form |
 |
Write an Email Message Direct |
 |
Weekly
Update Bulletin On-Line.........
.. In The News and Readers Write In (with our answers to Questions).......... |
| IN
THE NEWS:
. McDonald's tests imported beef: No. 1 restaurant chain feels the pinch as U.S. slaughter herds shrink and prices rise. April 2, 2002: 5:21 PM EST . WASHINGTON (AP) - The all-American hamburger isn't all American anymore. McDonald's is joining Burger King, Wendy's and other fast-food chains in importing beef from Australia and New Zealand because there's a shortage of U.S. beef that's lean enough or cheap enough for its burgers. The supply just isn't there, says McDonald's Corp. spokesman Walt Riker. For now, McDonald's is trying out the imported beef in about 400 of its 13,000 U.S. stores, all in the Southeast. Customers won't know the difference, he said. We're running a small test using some beef that is top quality. . EDITORS NOTES: I thought I had heard it all, but I guess not. The country previously known as the breadbasket to the world does not have enough beef to feed it’s own citizens? Tiny New Zealand is now feeding Americans? I personally have nothing against Australia or New Zealand, but find it incredible that US restaurant chains have to buy food from abroad, and of all things - beef. What’s next? . http://money.cnn.com/2002/04/02/news/companies/mcdonalds_beef.ap/index.htm . . IS U.S. READY FOR CHAOTIC OIL MARKETS? - Reserve stands at less than half of 1985 levels . As oil prices soar above $28 a barrel for the first time in six months and Saddam Hussein calls on Arab states to use oil as a weapon to punish countries supporting Israel, America’s insurance policy against an import cutoff stands at less than half of what it was in 1985. The 560 million barrels in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve are enough to replace just 53 days of imports. Seventeen years ago, the reserve afforded a 118-day cushion. . http://www.msnbc.com/news/732411.asp?cp1=1 . . READERS WRITE IN: . As a follow up to our previous comments regarding the IRS probe into offshore credit cards, a reader sent in the following (and we are reprinting this new and recent article from the NEW YORK TIMES for our readers, which is a follow up story to the previous one): . The I.R.S. said yesterday that Americans in far greater numbers than it had once thought were evading taxes by secretly depositing money in tax havens like the Cayman Islands and withdrawing it using American Express (news/quote), MasterCard and Visa cards. . The I.R.S. said its estimate that one million to two million Americans might be using such accounts was based on records that it had obtained by summons from MasterCard of 230,000 bank accounts in three tax-haven countries. A prominent criminal tax lawyer, Elliott H. Kajan of Beverly Hills, Calif., said, however, that the estimate was so out of proportion that he doubted it would hold up. But the Internal Revenue Service said that from records of purchases, it had already identified hundreds of income tax cheats, including executives of publicly traded companies, business owners, doctors, lawyers and investment professionals. These people - most believed to have incomes that would put them among the top 1 percent of taxpayers - "are using offshore cards to pay for living expenses," the I.R.S. said, from groceries to cars to college tuition for their children. . Offshore accounts would be of little use to people whose wages are reported to the I.R.S. by their employers. But entertainers, business owners, investors and others who control what is reported to the I.R.S. can use offshore accounts to hide fees, profits, dividends, interest and capital gains. Setting up such accounts has become a popular practice among a number of financial institutions that provide services to affluent individuals. Joseph C. West, the revenue agent running the investigation, said in an affidavit that he had found dozens of companies using the Internet to solicit people who want to hide money. Among companies the I.R.S. identified in court papers as advertising offshore banking secrecy were KPMG, the big accounting firm, and three big banking companies - Barclays, HSBC and Royal Bank of Canada (news/quote). . Officials at KPMG and HSBC did not return calls last night. Representatives of Barclays and the Royal Bank said they could not locate someone knowledgeable on the issue. A senior I.R.S. official said many of those with the offshore accounts may have been seeking to hide income and assets from a spouse, especially in divorce, or from creditors, including plaintiffs in lawsuits. Tax evasion, she said, was an unavoidable byproduct of these strategies. The commissioner of internal revenue, Charles O. Rossotti, said the I.R.S. was determined to be more aggressive going after Americans who use such accounts to avoid taxes. . For years people assumed we wouldn't be able to find them," Mr. Rossotti said. "Simply put, the guarantee of secrecy associated with offshore banking is evaporating. In October 2000, the I.R.S. sought credit card records of accounts of MasterCard and American Express in Caribbean tax havens that routinely showed charges in the United States. At the time, prominent tax experts said they assumed that at most tens of thousands of Americans had such accounts. . The I.R.S. made its estimate based on the market share of MasterCard, which is much smaller than Visa in the international credit card business, and the estimated volume of business done in three dozen tax-haven countries. Several lawyers said yesterday that they were astounded by the new I.R.S. estimate of the extent of the conduct, which was included in papers filed in federal court in San Francisco. Katherine Kneally, a criminal tax lawyer in New York who heads an American Bar Association committee on tax penalties, said the estimate of such widespread cheating sent a dark message about the income tax system, which depends on individuals' voluntarily determining how much they owe and filing honest tax returns. It says that the I.R.S. has drifted from its mission, Ms. Kneally said. It says that the message of deterrence is not out there. The I.R.S. audits only about one in 160 income tax returns. It devotes few resources to identifying those who do not file tax returns: of several dozen individuals and businesses named in The New York Times in recent years as not filing tax returns, only two said that they had been audited. Many of the offshore account holders identified by the I.R.S. did not file income tax returns, the agency said, while others filed, but failed to report their offshore account. . It is legal to have an offshore account, provided it is reported and any taxes are paid. Failure to disclose such holdings is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. In 1999, the I.R.S. said, 117,000 Americans checked the box on their income tax return disclosing an offshore account, far fewer than the number of MasterCard accounts the agency found in just Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, and the Cayman Islands. Because of secrecy laws in the tax-haven nations, the charge records reveal only account numbers - not names. So investigators, in a laborious process, must turn to merchants to obtain the names of the individuals through their credit card receipts. Investigators will have an easier time finding tax evasion by customers of American Express, which agreed to turn over some records after giving the customers warning. But the agreement is limited to those accounts, billed to addresses/in the three tax havens, that incurred at least five charges in the United States in 1998 and 1999 and in which at least one was for at least $2,500 on certain types of purchases, including automobiles, jewelry and yachts. . Unlike MasterCard and Visa, which as networks do not know the names of customers, American Express knows its cardholders. A senior I.R.S. official acknowledged yesterday that the agency lacked the resources to prosecute most of the offshore tax evaders or even to pursue civil penalties against more than a fraction. We have lots of indications of tax evasion here, said Dale Hart, an I.R.S. deputy commissioner, and we are going to be using the resources we do have to work those cases to the best of our ability. But, she noted, every day, several times a day, we make decisions about which cases we will work and which we will not. . Congress has sharply reduced the agency's budget for tax enforcement. Today, just 23 tax auditors remain on the payroll in Manhattan, the richest tax district in the country, down from 150 several years ago. When the I.R.S. obtained records of one bank in the Cayman Islands, it said it found 1,500 cases worth prosecuting. "How many have they brought?" asked Larry Campagna, a criminal tax lawyer in Houston. "Maybe 10?" Mr. Campagna said that when the investigation was completed many of the credit cards would be found to have innocent explanations and not involve tax crimes. Ms. Kneally and Mr. Kagan expressed similar views. But Ms. Hart said she was confident from the data analyzed so far that the I.R.S. had found many deliberate tax evaders and not innocents caught up in a fishing expedition. The I.R.S. disclosed its estimates in seeking records of Visa cards issued in 33 nations that have been used in the United States. "If the MasterCard information is representative of the industry," it said, "there could be one to two million U.S. citizens with debit-credit cards issued by offshore banks." . http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/26/business/26TAX.html?ex=1018339796&ei=1&en=d464ad06dff7d74e . EDITORS REPLY: We have already addressed this in a previous newsletter, but I what I find very interesting is that now the estimates (or guess-timates) from the IRS say that up to TWO MILLION Americans have accounts offshore, as opposed to 100,000 referenced before. Also, large US accounting firms, such KPMG are being sited as soliciting such tax-planning services that utilize offshore tax-haven jurisdictions. In other words, look out for charges to be brought against such US based organizations for doing what is within the law to do – offering tax planning advice and services based upon the existing tax code. . Also of interest, the news article clearly states (as we reported): Because of secrecy laws in the tax-haven nations, the charge records reveal only account numbers - not names. So investigators, in a laborious process, must turn to merchants to obtain the names of the individuals through their credit card receipts. Also, as we reported to you as well, the article also states: Unlike MasterCard and Visa, which as networks do not know the names of customers, American Express knows its cardholders. . What’s this all about? Obviously it is about trying to attack anyone and any organization possible to stop Americans from escaping from the US (with their money) AS the attempt to gain information from offshore banks and other governments have proved somewhat futile. . . Another Reader Writes: . Hello John: Here is another case of paranoia in America. The recent Academy Awards ceremony was the tightest ever from a security standpoint. One of the security officials was quoted as saying before the ceremony that great effort was taken to scour and secure the hills around the area to make sure no one with a Stinger Missile could fire one off from up there and cause mayhem at the ceremony. When I heard this I choked with laughter. It seems the security personnel live in just as much a fantasyland as their employers. A Stinger missile is not easy to come by. Who would waste them on entertainers? There are far more important targets. Celebrities and their security people like to think they are the only people in the world who matter. What a laugh. . This next statement is for that (blank) who called you a foreign pundit for criticizing the US from afar. I am a US citizen and I resent my tax dollars being given away and spent on crap that will never do me any good. I have my own family to take care of. Why do I have to take care of someone else’s? Why should I work hard and have a major portion of my income go out to someone else for things that do not help my family? Why should I pay for some congressman's $5,000 raise? A congressman who will never know me or give a damn about me. Why should I pay for another nuclear missile? It’s all bull. None of this helps me as an ordinary American citizen. I intend to work for my family. Not someone else’s. Is that selfish? No - Its survival of those of us who work hard and earn our own way. I came up from a poor family. I took crap jobs that I will never do again and often went to work hungry because I made minimum wage and still paid taxes, but I made it. If the US would stop trying to be the worlds policeman and stop trying to order the rest of the world around then maybe we as Americans would not be hated so much. I can see why foreigners resent us they way they do. I would too if I were in their shoes. Fortunately, many foreigners understand that the ordinary American citizen has no control over what the American government does. This is supposed to be a democracy, but do we have a choice to pay into Social Security? If we don't pay our taxes our homes are seized. The American government apparently thinks the citizens (and the rest of the world) exist to serve it. I have news for the US government. There are those of us who will not be controlled, ordered and intimidated. You will not get our hard earned dollar and you will not jail us. We will survive. It has been said that eventually there will be another Civil War in America. It may be 50 or 100 years from now but unrest will come if things keep going the way it is. . EDITORS REPLY: Thank you for your letter and your comments. . . On a note regarding passport issues, another Reader Writes: . John, A few points of comment: The US situation is getting scarier than most might think. Advances in Big Brother government have accelerated due to recent events. Greater control of the people has been the objective for a long time, and it is getting serious now. First I point you to this site: . http://news.com.com/2100-1023-272894.html?legacy=cnet . Essentially it talks about how far behind the technology of the State Department is – then what they are doing about it comes here: . http://www.overseasdigest.com/currentOD.htm . New American Passport Procedure: Effective April 8, 2002, American citizens residing or traveling abroad who require issuance of a U. S. passport will be provided with the latest, state-of-the-art passport incorporating a photo-digitized image and other enhanced security features. American citizens with valid passports do not need to acquire a new photo-digitized passport at this time. All existing U.S. passports remain valid until the expiration dates printed in the passports. Since the facilities for producing photo-digitized passports are located in the United States, all U.S. embassies and consulates around the world will cease printing passports locally. Passport applications will be submitted to your local Embassy or consulate as before. Once the consular officer approves the issuance of the passport, the Embassy will send the application by express courier to the National Passport Center in the United States. There, a photo-digitized passport will be produced and then delivered to the Embassy by express courier. The applicant will then be invited to visit the Embassy in order to receive the new passport. . This process is expected to take 1-2 weeks for each application. American citizens are thus encouraged to apply at least one month ahead of time for renewal of their expiring passports or for first time passport issuance. Each applicant for passport renewal will be permitted to retain the old passport, without cancellation, until the new passport is ready to be picked up at the Embassy. Now this might sound just wonderful, but, please remember there is more: What they will be enforcing is: . Citizenship Verification and Name Clearance: The U.S. embassy/consulate will confirm your previous passport issuance through our Passport Verification System. The consular section will also attempt to clear your name through the U.S. Department of State name check system to ensure there is nothing preventing issuance of a U.S. passport to you (for example: outstanding arrest warrant, court order, etc.) See 22 CFR 51.70. But you see, if by chance you have ANY problem, you will not get your passport renewed. Take a look at the list - then think about what happens if the IRS flags your name. Make a political comment before an election? That could do it to. Be accused of wrong-doing – a VERY popular thing these days, just an accusation for a long list of things can get your property seized. Read the list and take the view of a greedy prosecutor. (Number b4 is a great one). And of course, DO NOT expect this list of reasons to get any shorter! . [Code of Federal Regulations] [Title 22, Volume 1, Parts 1 to 299] [Revised as of April 1, 1999] From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access [CITE: 22CFR51.70] . TITLE 22--FOREIGN RELATIONS CHAPTER I--DEPARTMENT OF STATE PART 51--PASSPORTS--Table of Contents Subpart E--Limitation on Issuance or Extension of Passports Sec. 51.70 Denial of passports. . (a) A passport, except for direct return to the United States, shall not be issued in any case in which the Secretary of State determines or is informed by competent authority that: (1) The applicant is the subject of an outstanding Federal warrant of arrest for a felony, including a warrant issued under the Federal Fugitive Felon Act (18 U.S.C. 1073); or **** PERSONAL NOTE – THIS COULD INCLUDE TAXES *** (2) The applicant is subject to a criminal court order, condition of probation, or condition of parole, any of which forbids departure from the United States and the violation of which could result in the issuance of a Federal warrant of arrest, including a warrant issued under the Federal Fugitive Felon Act; or (3) The applicant is subject to a court order committing him or her to a mental institution; or (4) The applicant is the subject of a request for extradition or provisional arrest for extradition, which has been presented to the government of a foreign country; or (5) The applicant is the subject of a subpoena issued pursuant to section 1783 of title 28, United States Code, in a matter involving Federal prosecution for, or grand jury investigation of, a felony; or (6) The applicant has not repaid a loan received from the United States as prescribed under Secs. 71.10 and 71.11 of this chapter; or (7) The applicant is in default on a loan received from the United States to effectuate his or her return from a foreign country in the course of travel abroad; or (8) The applicant has been certified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services as notified by a State agency under 42 U.S.C. 652(k) to be in arrears of child support in an amount exceeding $5,000.00. (b) A passport may be refused in any case in which the Secretary of State determines or is informed by competent authority that: (1) The applicant has not repaid a loan received from the United States to effectuate his or her return from a foreign country in the course of travel abroad; or (2) The applicant has been legally declared incompetent unless accompanied on his or her travel abroad by the guardian or other person responsible for the national's custody and well being; or (3) The applicant is under the age of 18 years, unmarried and not in the military service of the United States unless a person having legal custody of such national authorizes issuance of the passport and agrees to reimburse the United States for any monies advanced by the United States for the minor to return to the United States; or (4) The Secretary determines that the national's activities abroad are causing or are likely to cause serious damage to the national security or the foreign policy of the United States; or **** THIS IS VAUGE *** (5) The applicant has been the subject of a prior adverse action under this section or Sec. 51.71 and has not shown that a change in circumstances since the adverse action warrants issuance of a passport; or (6) The applicant is subject to an order of restraint or apprehension issued by an appropriate officer of the United States Armed Forces pursuant to chapter 47 of title 10 of the United States Code. . Now, if you still happen to think you can just vote with your feet, that is coming to an end as well: You can check out, but you can NEVER leave. . “Also, persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should also be aware that the fact that a person has renounced U.S. citizenship may have no effect whatsoever on his or her U.S. tax or military service obligations (contact the Internal Revenue Service or U.S. Selective Service for more information). In addition, the act of renouncing U.S. citizenship will not allow persons to avoid possible prosecution for crimes which they may have committed in the United States, or escape the repayment of financial obligations previously incurred in the United States.” Even if you go they can still hunt you, like a mad dog. . EDITORS REPLY: For me, this is nothing new or surprising. The so-called expatriate act or legislation pushed through by Senator Patrick Moynahan some years ago basically states that if they (US tax authorities) think you are renouncing citizenship to gain tax advantages, that they claim the right to tax you anyway even though conceivably you no longer have US citizenship. Kind of like being in the Mafia, although at least with the Mafia, they say the one way out is through your own death. With the US government, even after you are dead, they still chase you for estate taxes. I do not know what to say other than it brings me back to the theme of a government trying to run its own citizens, instead of the citizens running the government. Getting back to the taxation issues, there are many governments that do welcome new and productive citizens and dual citizenship is certainly and option – possibly a necessity even. Also, its tough talk, but try and chase the bank or investment accounts of a former US citizen across seven different countries for the collection of taxes they claim are due after you have already paid taxes your entire life and after you might have renounced your citizenship. Can you imagine, with all of the Irish immigrants and Italian immigrants that came to America during the turn of the century, if those countries said – we will let you go, but you must send tax payments back to Ireland and Italy each year? I wonder what the reaction of the US government might be if Italy or Ireland, for example, asked for 100 years of back taxes due from immigrants that migrated (and were working in) the good ole USA (and asked for the banking records of all persons in the US with an Irish or Italian last name)? . . Another Reader Writes: . John, I enjoy your newsletter very much. Some questions: You've mentioned Panama quite a bit. Can you comment at all on its northern neighbor, Costa Rica? The latest news is as of last month Libertarians were elected to some 10% of its legislature. That sounds very promising to me. Any comment on how it id different then Panama, and where you think it's going? Any ideas about gaining residency there? It's economy? I'm actively looking for a place to escape to. I'm not sure the DR would be right for me. I also have many reservations about Panama, as I fear the US may have too much hidden pull in Panama after the George Bush Sr. Panamanian Massacre, replacing Noreaga with what appears to be another US puppet government. All your comments appreciated. Also after reading one of the last 'love it for leave it' type responses you reprinted in you last letter I was motivated to write the following this morning. Please consider forwarding it to your list. (Along with your criticisms, should you have any.)? . EDITORS REPLY: Well, I do disagree on your comments about Panama being a US puppet government in general, as one need to do is look at the former President of Panama, President Balladares (or El Toro as he is nicknamed) or in the case of the DR, former President Leonel Fernandez. Of course political leaders may change and you may have some administrations which are more pro US than others, but the legal and banking community in particular do have a very clear sense of what might be going on with regards to US pressures. Political leaders of any country, in the end, still have to live in their respective countries and still have to worry about doing what the people want (which includes the business sector). . With regards to Costa Rica, it is a very beautiful country with an overall very pleasant climate. However, the cost of living has gotten so out of hand in recent years that many people that did retire to Costa Rica are now going elsewhere (as Costa Rica is no longer the cost of living bargain it once was). Many of those retired Americans have in fact come to the Dominican Republic. However, in the end, my advice is to visit ALL of the places you might consider and make up your own mind accordingly. No place is perfect, but some countries might rank higher on the list of things important to you, which might be a very different list someone else has. . . Another Reader Writes: . Nice info Mr. Schroder. I'm currently active military age 25 and my friend just paid off his Prospective retirement land in the Philippines and that has gotten me looking around for mine. I've been looking at some of those probably over-priced beachfront lots on various sites and the prices still seem rather affordable and I'm really intrigued by the banking investments as well. I guess my main question would be since I have bad credit still from some mistakes back in high school, would a D.R. bank be willing to give me a loan for a plot? The company I was looking at was asking like 30,000 for 8,000 sq ft plots second row from the beach in North area. Where should I start my search for better prices and a possible bank loan? . EDITORS REPLY: Local banks in the Dominican Republic will of course offer financing for local real estate. However, the ironic thing is, many Americans especially have the view that banking in Latin America is unregulated or wild and wooly. The truth is, with regards to Dominican Banks at least - they are very strict in their lending practices and will for certain ask for co-signers and guarantees of additional collateral – in comparison to that a US bank would probably not (which says something about the lending practices of US banks and why many are flirting with disaster at the moment). Also, keep in mind that while interest rates are very attractive in the DR (stated more plainly, the rates of interest are high, which is in fact the attraction to banking here), the flip side of the coin is that loan rates are very high also. So, expect to pay (as Dominicans do) up to perhaps 28% or 30% for a mortgage. . . Another Reader Writes: . John - You may find this interesting. Especially when you get to stipulation number three in the U.N. agenda section. . ANOTHER STEP TO GLOBAL TYRANNY By Graham Strachan . Another step towards world government will be taken this week in Monterrey, Mexico, at a World Conference on Financing for Development. This is the follow-up to the Millennium Summit held at United Nations headquarters in New York between 6-8 September 2000, which culminated in world leaders signing the Millennium Declaration. The Australian public can be forgiven for knowing next to nothing about the Millennium Declaration. Apart from a brief report in The Age on 9 September 2000, the Australian media all but ignored it. Article 6 of the Declaration said, “Responsibility for managing worldwide economic and social development - must be shared among the nations of the world and should be exercised multilaterally (acting in concert). As the most universal and most representative organization in the world, the United Nations must play the central role.” . Let’s be clear on what that says: that worldwide social and economic development from now on is the collective responsibility of all the nations of the world acting in concert under the direction of the United Nations. The Millennium Declaration went on to say - We will make every effort to ensure the success of the High-level International and Intergovernmental Event on Financing for Development. Immediately after the Summit, a special High Level Panel was formed to consider Financing for Development, and it produced a Report. The purpose of this week’s ‘event’ is to ‘consider’ the report’s recommendations. The word consider is in parentheses because very little real ‘considering’ goes on at these conferences. Conference resolutions are prepared in advance by UN bureaucrats, and ‘considering’ takes the form of intensive lobbying of delegates until they accept them. In Australia’s case that’s no problem. It is has ‘globalization’ written on it, Australia will sign it. Four of the Report’s 12 major recommendations are as follows: . 1. Establish a global Development Fund into which developed countries will pay a proportion of their GDPs for redistribution by the UN to developing countries. 2. Establish a Global Economic Security Council, which will control all agencies and organizations that have any influence over the international economy, including all the financial exchange mechanisms. 3. Establish an International Tax Organization which is to set international taxing policy, including the elimination of ‘tax competition’ (tax havens), and requiring people who earn money offshore to pay tax in their country of origin. This recommendation includes ‘information sharing’ among nations, coordinated through the United Nations, in order to track the economic activity of every person and every business operating globally. 4. Establish international tax source(s) - including the Tobin Tax on currency exchange, and a global tax on carbon (the use of fossil fuels). The Tobin Tax alone is estimated to yield $1.5 trillion dollars annually – more than 100 times the UN’s current budget. . Whatever the outcome, it will be decided on the other side of the world, by people elected by no one, and accountable to no one. Globalists call it ‘participative democracy’. Anything the Australian delegation agrees to will not be debated in the parliament, and Australians will not realise what their government has committed them to until it is too late to do anything about it – not that they can do anything about it now anyway, under Australia’s bipartisan political arrangement. It will be interesting to see how the major media spin this - if they report it at all - so as to allay suspicions that this might be the next significant step towards world government. - Graham Strachan is the author of ’22 Steps to Global Tyranny’. . EDITORS REPLY: This has been the goal of the US for some time, which is basically to say economic and social control – the so-called New World Order, if you will. However, not everyone in the world is in agreement. Also, many smaller nations especially already have had a taste of what it means when they have become indebted to other foreign nations or are dependant upon other nations with respect to trade issues. The argument of course used with the developing nations is, Don’t Worry – Be Happy – We want to help you become big and strong, just like us. The reality or undertone is, economic and political control seated with the bureaucrats far away at the UN. The real purpose of all this, in my opinion, is as follows: . ALL of the so-called industrialized nations are going broke, slowly but surely. Why? The previous manufacturing base, which provided jobs and tax revenues, have pretty much gone. Where did it or they go? Places like Mexico, China, Korea, Thailand, Taiwan, India, The Dominican Republic, etc., etc. Places whereby labor costs are much lower and where the local governments in these countries might have put tax incentives in place (zero tax on profits for 20 years for example in some of the Free Zones). Also, citizens of these high tax industrialized nations have taken their money and sent it elsewhere to try and avoid an ever increasing or burdensome tax structure as a result of trying to keep the machine running (meaning all of the expensive social programs and general government expenditures in such so-called modern or industrialized nations). The result? Free market competition working the way it is suppose to work and also why these so-called merging markets now have some of the fastest growing economies and the creation of an increasing middle class with spending power or disposable income. All of this now taking place on its own without the UN, or anyone else, getting involved (as a function of the free market and very FAIR competition). However, the idea behind these new so-called helpful initiatives is to force the flow of capital (tax collection and tax revenues especially) to flow through the UN, so it can supposedly be put to good use helping all the unfortunates of the world (who are not so unfortunate really anymore thanks to things like Free Zones, tax-free banking in their own country, etc.). Where will all this money go? Principally back to the high tax countries so they can avoid having to come to the stark realization that things have changed (for the worse, for them). Stated more plainly, they want to get their hands on the dough they have lost and are losing to other countries and have come up with this new dog and pony show to sell the idea. . Their solution is kind of like saying, Well – we do not care where business relocates or what countries now have an economic success, providing we can still pull the strings and get that cash flow back into our coffers once again. In other words, economic, political and social control of the world – in short, a MONOPOLY. Using an illustrative example, let us say there is only one telephone company in the world (to replace the concept of only one government in the world, or one controlling group). In such a case, if Mexico had the fastest growing number of new consumers all wanting new telephone service and spending an incredible amount of money on local plus long distance telephone calls (now that the local citizens have the money to do so), and it all funnels back to ATT, an American Company, then who cares that US domestic telephone revenues are on the decline. ATT gets to make up the shortfall from Mexico. However, let us say that Mexico has one or more of its own local telephone companies suddenly making a ton of money and ATT was left out of it. Let us also say or presume that TELMEX, the Mexican telephone company, is now the fastest growing and wealthiest telephone company in the world, knocking ATT down to number 3 or 4 on the list worldwide. ATT would not be too happy and would try to do whatever it could, perhaps even some things that were unethical, to prevent itself from going bankrupt. Of course, to say you are a very fair and honest company (ATT in our example) which then does some very underhanded things, is of course hypocritical and plain wrong (or at least in violation of what you say you stand for). . In short, this what you have going on at the moment. A nation or group of nations slowly going bankrupt, saying they want to see FREE TRADE and open competition, while at the same time trying to set up somewhat of a controlling monopoly. To quote an old American Indian, beware of white man bearing gifts or offers of free assistance (the only person he wants to assist is himself). . . Another Reader Writes: . John, It never ends - - taken from Panama News . http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_07/issue_24/business_briefs.html . US, RP talking about tax information sharing: The governments of the United States and Panama are discussing a possible agreement to share tax information about their citizens. Such a deal could end bank secrecy and Panama's accustomed role as an offshore financial center. Negotiators for Panama say that the talks are just in the exploratory phase, and that some agreement will be necessary to keep the country off of international financial blacklists. A draft of the agreement published in several of the daily newspapers shows a wide-ranging plan by which the United States could obtain banking and other financial information about any person, whether or not an investigation or legal proceeding is underway, and it would be a crime to reveal to the person about whom the information is sought that such data has been revealed. The suggested agreement has been greeted with strident criticism by leaders of Panama's banking industry and legal profession, but in a statement that can be found in the Opinion section of this issue of The Panama News, the US Embassy argues that the deal would promote tourism here. President Moscoso has promised that any agreement would be subject to a national consensus on the issue and ratification by the legislature. . EDITORS REPLY: Well, first of all, I would say see my previous comments above. Secondly, I would point out the following quote from the article: THE SUGGESTED AGREEMENT HAS BEEN GREETED WITH STRIDENT CRITICISM BY LEADERS OF PANAMA’S BANKING AND LEGAL PROFESSION. Also, Panama’s President Moscoso has said the matter will be put to a NATIONAL VOTE (recall what I said earlier about politicians trying to publicly appease the US, but also save their own political hide). If the voters turn it down (which I certainly expect that they would), President Moscoso can say to the US, you see – I did what you asked but the people voted it down. . On another note, I find the following quote from the US Embassy one of the funniest things I have heard this month (and I quote): The US Embassy argues that the deal would promote tourism here (in Panama). Sure it will, just like the US promise to the Bahamas that a tax deduction offered to all US companies willing to hold their board meetings in the Bahamas will make up for the loss in banking and company formation revenues (as a result of the Bahamas decision to turn over banking records of US citizens to the American IRS). It has been estimated that banks in the Bahamas have lost up to 40% of their deposits within the first six months of last year, yet how many corporate board meetings have been held in the Bahamas (by US Companies)?? I honestly do not know if the US Government really thinks that Panamanians are that stupid, or if they (the American Embassy in Panama) honestly believe by taking away banking privacy in Panama, that the local hotels will fill up as a result. By using this logic, why not start taxing foreign owned US based brokerage accounts for capital gains? Surely this will lead to increased attendance at Florida’s Disney World, or increased foreign tourism in New York City – No? Call New York City Mayor Bloomberg, alert the media, the US Embassy in Panama has a plan to bring lost tourist dollars back to New York. Tax all foreign owned brokerage accounts carried or held by US brokerage companies in New York. Let’s get Merrill Lynch and Smith Barney working on it right away! . . This information has been compiled and presented by John Schroder of Ascot Advisory Services, for the benefit of clients and readers. Ascot Advisory Services provides assistance with such matters as offshore company formation, Panama Foundations, offshore banking, and special services in the Dominican Republic regarding residency, free zone applications, etc. For more information: |