|
|
|
Our on-line
newsletter bulletin now going on our sixth year!
Offering our clients and readers news items and headlines
often not covered by the mainstream media, articles of interest
regarding banking, economics, real estate, taxes, living or investing
abroad, plus much more. Finally, our very popular readers write
in section, with answers to some of the questions many of our readers
have - that no one else wants to answer truthfully, except us!
Want to See our Other Back Issues from 2002 - 2005?........Click Here
|
|
|
|
Visit The Main Newsletter Section & Read Past Issues On-Line:
Dominican Republic Real Estate, Residency Filing, Banking and Interest Rates.
Panama Residency and Retirement. Naturalization and Dual Citizenship - Expatriate Issues.
Economics commentary, inflation, housing, stock markets and investing -
Plus a Whole Lot More !
.
|
Our March 1, 2006 Newsletter Edition
|
.
|
IN THE NEWS:
.
.
FROZEN ACCOUNT RUFFLES NUNS - By ELAINE SILVESTRINI and HOWARD ALTMAN The Tampa Tribune, Feb 8, 2006
.
I think people need to know that nobody is safe from, in some cases,
really ridiculous scrutiny, Sister Jean Abbott says of the Patriot Act,
which was cited when the nuns account was frozen.
.
ST. LEO - The nuns of the Holy Name Monastery say they have been swept
into the net cast by the nation's antiterrorism laws. The sisters
say the monastery's main bank account was frozen without explanation in
November, creating financial headaches and making the Benedictine nuns
hopping mad. They were told the Patriot Act was the cause. I
think the Patriot Act is unwise, let's say, and that if it happened to
us, it can happen to anybody, said Sister Jean Abbott, the monastery's
business manager. I think people need to know that nobody is safe
from, in some cases, really ridiculous scrutiny. The nuns didn't
know anything was amiss until Nov. 10, when their checks started
bouncing without warning and the account wouldn't accept deposits,
including paychecks from state agencies where some of the sisters hold
jobs. Two of the bounced checks had gone to other charities,
Abbott said. Others went to pay VISA and utility bills. In all, the
account was frozen for a week. In that time, 22 checks were returned
with an ominous but baffling stamp: Refer to Maker. Before
everything was straightened out, the nuns ran up $399.56 in fees, which
were later reimbursed by their apologetic local bank, Abbott said. The
mess took nearly three months to remedy, she said.
.
http://www.tbo.com/news/metro/MGBTP976FJE.html
.
EDITORS NOTES:
Even the good nuns from the Holy Name Monastery are not safe. We
are indeed witnessing a new world order, but I get the impression the
promotion we were told was a bit different than the end product.
.
.
FIRMS SHOP OVERSEAS, THIS TIME FOR TALENT - By Steve Lohr The New York Times, Thursday February 16, 2006
.
The globalization of work tends to start from the bottom up. The first
jobs to be moved abroad are typically simple assembly tasks, followed
by manufacturing, and, later, skilled work like computer
programming. At the end of this progression is the work by
scientists and engineers in research and development laboratories.
.
A study that was to be presented Thursday to the National Academies,
the leading American advisory groups on science and technology,
suggests that increasingly more research work at corporations will be
sent to fast-growing economies with strong education systems, like
China and India. In a survey of more than 200 multinational
corporations on their research center decisions, 38 percent said they
planned to "change substantially" the worldwide distribution of their
research and development work over the next three years - with China
and India having booming markets and world-class scientists and
attracting the greatest increase in projects. The study contended
that lower labor costs in emerging markets are not the major reason for
hiring researchers overseas, though they are a consideration. Tax
incentives do not matter much, either, it said.
.
Dow Chemical is one company that plans to invest heavily in new
research and development centers in China and India. It is building a
research center in Shanghai, which will employ 600 technical workers
when it is completed next year. Dow is also finishing plans for a large
installation in India, said William Banholzer, Dow's chief technology
officer. Today, the company employs 5,700 scientists worldwide,
about 4,000 of them in the United States and Canada, and most of the
rest in Europe. But the moves overseas will alter that. There
will be a major shift for us, Banholzer said. The swift
economic growth in China and India, he said, is part of the appeal
because products and processes often have to be tailored for local
conditions. The rising skill of the scientists abroad is another
reason. There are so many smart people over there, Banholzer
said. There is no monopoly on brains, and none on education
either.
.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/16/business/outsource.php
.
EDITORS NOTES:
So, are we now saying it is not about lower labor costs and not about
lower taxes? Instead, all the smart engineers and scientists are
now in China, India and not in the US? Dow Chemical says 4,000 of
its employees are inside the US, but moves overseas will alter that
(the plain English version is that Dow Chemical will be laying off a
lot of people in the US real soon, so if you work for Dow start getting
your resume out). In addition, there are so many smart people
over there (in China and India) so also says the nice folks that make
your favorite brand of toilet bowl cleaner. So, how did the
Chinese and Indians get so smart and how did Americans become so
dumb?
.
.
IS CHINA PREPARING FOR WAR? By Mark W. Hughes - Infoshop News, February 15, 2006
.
The Chinese central bank holds foreign currency reserves that have
reached $819 billion, a foreign currency reserve second only to Japan
and expected to exceed that nation's reserves this year. China has
invested about three-quarters of this reserve in U.S. Treasury bills
and other dollar-dominated assets. China's purchase of Treasury bills,
in additions to similar purchasing by Japan and other nations
(predominantly OPEC members) is responsible for much of the value of
the U.S. dollar, and China uses the purchases to keep its own currency
-- the yuan -- undervalued, thus maintaining a balance of trade that
vastly favors cheap Chinese manufacturing goods. This also has the
effect of holding U.S. interest rates at low levels, besides keeping
the dollar at a high value worldwide. Chinese currency reserves are
growing at an average rate of $15 billion each month.
.
However, China is now poised to move much of its currency reserves away
from dollars and into other currencies, including the euro, and into
commodities purchases -- predominantly oil. China's State
Administration of Foreign Exchange has said they will "actively explore
more efficient use of our foreign exchange reserves." This followed
statements from one of China's central bank monetary policy committee's
economist that "The general trend for the U.S. dollar is continually
weakening." The economist, Yu Yongding, continued, "Countries with huge
foreign-exchange reserves will have their assets shrunken." Finally, in
July of 2005 China adjusted its own currency evaluation and increased
the yuan by 2-percent against the dollar, and stated that rather than
keeping with the system of the yuan's value automatically shifting in
accord with the U.S. dollar, the yuan would now fluctuate based upon
numerous other currencies such as the euro and the Japanese yen.
.
These moves in China's economy could signal significant dangers to the
U.S. economy. A decreased need for dollars in China, and an increased
reliance on other currencies, the value of the dollar will plummet and
interest rates will rise. A sell-off by China of U .S. Treasury bills
will likewise cause the value of those dollar-dominated assets to
plummet, and could trigger a sell-off by other nations including Japan
and OPEC members. The dollar last year recovered from a slow decline in
value over the preceding years, a drop partly triggered by the rise in
value of the euro and the amassing of euros in central banks in several
nations, including OPEC members Venezuela, Iran, and Iraq (which had
shifted all of it's Oil For Food funds at the U.N. -- roughly $10
billion -- from dollars to euros, and had broke from the OPEC standard
of accepting only U.S. dollars for oil transactions).
.
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20060215180623912
.
EDITORS NOTES:
Regardless of whether we are talking about a trade war, or the other
kind, China now has the money and the manpower. General Zso might
be up to more than just cooking chicken.
.
.
HOUSING: WHO GETS BLAMED IF THE ROOF CAVES IN?
Business Week Magazine, February 27, 2006
.
A tumble in housing prices would cause voters more pain than falling
wages. When the housing boom finally goes bust, the real
political battles for the 2006 and 2008 elections will begin. That's my
conclusion as I watch Democrats struggle to score economic points
against the Bush Administration. Real wages are falling, and many
Americans are scared of globalization, issues that should play well for
the Democrats. But their attacks aren't resonating with voters, in
large part because of the rosy glow of housing-induced prosperity.
.
To see why the housing market matters so much, let me introduce you to
the typical American worker. He or she is 35 to 44 years old and has
less education than you probably realize, with some exposure to college
but without even a two-year degree. These folks have seen a decline in
real wages since President George W. Bush took office. Between 2000 and
2004, real earnings for such workers fell by 2.4%, or about $1,100 a
year. That's why many Democrats think that they should be doing better
in the polls. But wait. The typical American also owns a house.
Home-ownership climbed from 67% in 2000 to 69% today. Toss a wad of
paper into a crowd, and you are likely to hit someone who is paying a
mortgage or grousing about real estate taxes. For these people,
declining wages are less important than low interest rates and rising
home prices.
.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_09/b3973062.htm
.
EDITORS NOTES:
We have said it before, and we will say it again. The number one
priority of the US Central Bank (Federal Reserve) is to pump you up, or
perhaps better said the money supply (rather than having falling real
estate prices, which would make the bankers very unhappy indeed, after
being stuck with a foreclosed houses worth less than the mortgage
loan). On the other hand, as many steroid users will tell you -
they are some not so nice side effects (impotency for men is one in
terms of the steroids and dare I say, economic impotency regarding the
other?).
.
.
CHANGE TO NEW TAX REGIME GOES SMOOTHLY - By James Featherstone
February 14, 2006
.
European directives are guaranteed to glaze eyes over, but the EU
Savings Directive which came into force in July last year, matters if
you bank, save or invest offshore. In short, before the directive
came into effect, offshore holdings were exempt from tax at source as
the tax was payable when funds were repatriated. Now they are taxed at
source for all people who owe tax in an EU country, although an
alternative is to disclose details of offshore holdings to your revenue
service. Prior to the directive coming into force, surprisingly
few people - if any - knew how it would work in practice. Would there
be exemptions? How would they work? Would it be as simple as signing a
form to say you were not domiciled in the EU for tax purposes?
One thing Barclays found was that more customers than expected opted
for exchange of information with their tax authorities rather than go
down the withholding tax route.
.
In addition to applying to EU nationals, other regions are applying the
rules of the directive, such as UK Crown dependencies like the Channel
Islands, the Cayman Islands and the Isle of Man. Individuals can opt
either for a withholding tax applied to any savings or investment
income, or an exchange of information with their onshore tax authority.
EU nationals domiciled outside the EU for tax purposes simply have to
prove they are domiciled elsewhere. As long as they can produce
adequate proof - often from a professional adviser - they are okay,
said Mr Parks.
.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/
.
EDITORS NOTES:
It would seem that assuming you can provide legal proof of residency
status in a Non-European Union country, (for EU citizens of course)
then it would appear the same previous tax benefits might apply.
In other words, the impetus of this so-called tax savings directive was
to curtail Europeans still living inside the EU to take advantage of
more favorable banking or investment taxation treatment (tax-free), but
were not really eligible to because they were still living in (tax
resident) inside the EU. So, if someone could demonstrate legal
residency in another nation, such as provide proof of residency cards
to bankers, then there would be no negative tax treatment at the end of
the day (no tax, but of course disclosure of accounts to the home
country of citizenship, which may or may not appeal to some). If
only things were so fair and simple for
Americans.
.
.
QUOTE OF THE MONTH:
.
Bernanke feels in his heart of hearts that a little bit of inflation is
better than a little bit of deflation, Task said, noting that the Fed
head ticked off a list of deflationary phenomena associated with
globalization.
.
Source: http://www.thestreet.com/
Aaron Task: Real Money Radio Recap: Breaking Down Bernanke, 2/15/2006
.
EDITORS NOTES:
Mr. Task, you got that right (and we know all too well what Helicopter
Ben is up to), but what is this about deflationary phenomena associated
with globalization? It is very interesting that Mr. Bernanke
admits globalization has led to deflation (which is what we had during
the so-called Great Depression) and he wants to inflate like a wild man
(simply print more money). I thought they told us globalization
(Free Trade, NAFTA, CAFTA and all the other AFTAS) would bring nothing
but good things? The good things are all happening in the third
world, and Americans are stuck with declining wages, and maybe
deflation. Go figure. It would seem the previous comment of
a client of ours that stated the third world (China, India, Dominican
Republic, Thailand, Ecuador, etc.) is starting to look more and more
like the US fifty years ago, and the US more and more like the third
world appears to be somewhat accurate. Maybe it is time to move
to the third world, which might not be so third too much longer if they
keep going the way they have been.
.
.
SINGAPORE TAX POLICY ATTRACTS SWISS ACCOUNT MONEY - Monday, February 06, 2006, By Edward Taylor in Frankfurt and Cris Prystay in Singapore, The Wall Street Journal
.
For decades, the ultra-rich looking for discreet banking services
gravitated to Switzerland, where account secrecy was sacrosanct. But
when Swiss authorities acceded to pressure from the European Union to
discourage tax evasion, the door opened for a new challenger to woo the
world's wealthy: Singapore. The tiny Asian nation has beefed up
account-secrecy protections, changed trust laws, and begun allowing
foreigners who meet minimum wealth requirements to purchase land and
become residents. Now private-banking money is flooding in from
at least three sources: Asians who have grown rich from the booming
Asian-Pacific economy, foreigners seeking to invest and do business in
Asia, and Europeans moving money from Switzerland for tax purposes.
Swiss banks are expanding in Singapore to get in on the action.
The money flow demonstrates how one nation, in the borderless world of
international banking, can use banking regulation as an
economic-development tool -- and how complicated it is for tax
authorities around the world to plug revenue leaks. While tax
authorities have increased surveillance and regulation in a bid to stem
the flow of investment capital and profits to low-tax jurisdictions,
it's easier to shift money around than it used to be thanks to
technology, says Chris Edwards, director of tax policy at the Cato
Institute, a Washington-based think tank that favors free trade.
Both legal avoidance and illegal evasion techniques have become more
accessible
.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06037/651083.stm
.
EDITORS NOTES:
Singapore is becoming the new Switzerland? We reported on this
some time ago, so it is not so surprising. In line with that, I
will submit that you may want to consider banking in Hong Kong,
Bangkok, India, The Dominican Republic, Panama, and a slew of other
places you never considered before. Even the African nation of
Ghana recently proposed new legislation to invite a new offshore or
international banking industry to set up shop there as well.
Also, we have said before that countries are in competition with each
other for jobs, money, trade, banking deposits and new well-heeled
citizens as well. This is nothing new. The article says:
The money flow demonstrates how one nation, in the borderless world of
international banking, can use banking regulation as an
economic-development tool -- and how complicated it is for tax
authorities around the world to plug revenue leaks. However, I
will predict that plug they will certainly try to do considering all
the debt and coming increased costs for the social welfare programs (as
the so-called baby boomers starting tapping in). It is not
difficult to imagine coming restrictions on wire transfers and other
asset transfers as well. Previously the Canadian Government has
already told Scotia Bank NOT to accept accounts from Canadian Citizens
at Scotia Bank Branches out of Canada, which we learned about some time
ago involving Scotia Bank in Belize. Now in 2006, Scotia Bank
branches outside of Canada seem to be saying that they now will open
accounts for Canadians, but they will NOT pay any interest on the
account. How nice.
.
.
READERS WRITE IN:
.
Dear John - I found the writer Gary North's contribution concerning the
freezing of U.S. accounts very interesting. He describes his
experience with dealing with a person whose job it is to search
databases to look for names associated with back taxes owed by account
holders in the U.S. Here is where it gets interesting.
.
I live in Panama. There are a lot of stories here even in the
newspapers about the problems next door in Colombia. Everyone has heard
the horror stories about FARC and other revolutionary organizations
stopping busloads of people and looking for high net worth individuals
to extort money from. I have been to Colombia several times and I
personally have never had a problem. However, I have a Colombian
business friend here in Panama who tells me that it does indeed happen
and they especially like to find U.S. citizens because their bank
account information is so easy to access. A Panamanian who is
stopped can lie about what their assets are because banking information
is so hard to get and it is not on line. I have had several people tell
me that I should be especially careful when traveling in Colombia as a
U.S. citizen because FARC is using laptop computers with internet
connection that operate by satellite. Supposedly my U.S. bank account
information can be accessed along the side of a road in Colombia. The
local Bank of America branch in Florida where I maintain my U.S.
account has denied the knowledge of the existence of any national
database of bank account holders in the U.S.A. Evidently such a
database does exists. What is worse, by law every year I am required to
file a report with the treasury department in the U.S. disclosing my
foreign bank accounts. What does the treasury department do with this
information? Do you know if it is added to the database if there really
is one? Thanks for a great newsletter. I always enjoy reading it.
.
EDITROS REPLY:
Is there any sort of secret national database and what the heck is any
democratic and free government doing by keeping dossiers on its own
citizens? Which is to ask, what is the point or the agenda?
Technology can be a wonderful thing, but it also has its dark
side. Meaning, while it can be used to allow us to do things
faster, better and cheaper, it is also true that it allows for an
environment of or possibility of more control, not less.
Regardless of what kind of information is collected, catalogued and
analyzed, what is to stop anyone from abusing this information, or
using it for shall we say, less than moral and ethical means?
.
You mentioned the FARC, and as I am writing this, it occurs to me that
there may be some similarities between these people and some
governments. Both often enough have a political agenda, which
they need to economically support one way or another. Often
enough, since many people might not be so inclined to voluntarily turn
over funds to them, so they take it by force or by means outside of
what can be deemed legal or ethical. Which is to state that
economics, political organizations and human behavior are very much so
intertwined. The study of economics and politics on any level
really is a study of history, human nature and psychology. In
this regard, generally speaking, is human nature really so different,
regardless of whom we are talking about? The argument from some
will be that the rule of law, ethics and morality separates or
distinguishes one group, or even one nation, from another.
However, is this really true?
.
It hate to keep returning back to this eminent domain issue, but the
question remains - If politicians are able to get away with something
politically regardless if it is the right or wrong thing to do, what
stops them then? The argument should be the sense of what is
indeed right or wrong, moral and correct. In my own opinion, it
is incredulous, unbelievable and beyond any sort of justification that
any government, especially a government that prides itself on freedom,
ethics and protection of individual rights - can argue for and justify
the confiscation of the private property of its citizens. Even
worse to say it is being done for the public good in the sense that Mr.
Jones private house generates less annual tax revenue payments to the
state than if a commercial real estate project were to be built on his
land instead. Yet, they have the audacity and nerve to make such
a claim and sadly enough, a vast majority of citizens that seem to be
indifferent about the entire issue.
.
So, the point is that you make comments about a guerilla organization
that uses illegal and immoral tactics to generate revenue or funding,
yet how different really are they from any other so-called legitimate
and moral government in this regard? Please do not misread or
misunderstand me. I am in no way in agreement or condoning such
activities or such organizations, but rather making a much broader
point. When organizations or people become desperate for funds
(money, revenue, whatever you want to call it) it is often the case
they do desperate and perhaps illegal (and immoral) things in order to
get their hands on the cash. We briefly mentioned in previous
newsletters that ancient Roman soldiers out on the provinces started to
extract tribute (steal by force is another way to put it) from the
local population they were meant to protect when Rome was a bit slow in
sending their monthly salaries to them. Today, in 2006 inside the
so-called freest nation on earth (the US) we have local law enforcement
agencies that actually budget for annual revenues earned from property
confiscations as part their operations funding resources. Which
is to say, the booty obtained from private property confiscations can
generate an amount up to 100 percent of the police agencies revenue
funding (see the recent news article below titled: Drug Task Force
Funding Approved). Here are some interesting news stories and
information links on the topic:
.
Missouri:
.
A week after the Missouri Supreme Court ruling, then U.S. attorney for
the Western District of Missouri Paul Bradshaw II wrote law enforcement
agencies, encouraging them to file forfeitures with the U.S. Justice
Department. "As most of you know, the money we share through our
forfeiture program goes 'directly' to the state or local law
enforcement agency," Bradshaw wrote. However, the Kansas City Police
Department was already aware that federal seizure laws allow local and
state police to keep 85% of the money from forfeitures with the
remainder going to the federal government. During the months just
before the Missouri Supreme Court ruling, the Kansas City Police
Department spent more than half of its state seizure account while its
federal seizure account was increasing.
.
http://www.ndsn.org/dec96/kcmoney.html
.
North Carolina:
.
Very simply, the statute provides that seized property shall be held in
safekeeping until an order of disposition is properly entered by the
judge: Among the dispositions authorized by the statute: (1)
retain the property for official use; (2) sell property which is not
required to be destroyed by law; (3) transfer any conveyance to the
North Carolina Department of Justice for official use
.
http://www.jus.state.nc.us/NCJA/qomjun.htm
.
IS IT GETTER BETTER OR WORSE?
Consider the Following news article: Seized Property in Crime
Cases Causes Concern - by Stephen Labaton - May 29, 1993
Special to the New York Times
.
Washington, May 29--The bounty from America's war on crime sits in
building lots and parking lots, in marinas and airfields and bank
vaults around the nation: billions of dollars' worth of cars, boats,
planes, jewels, homes and other valuables seized by state and federal
agents from people accused of high profile crimes. To many
prosecutors, the laws that allow them to confiscate the assets of
suspects are both a powerful weapon against drug trafficking, illegal
immigration, racketeering and white-collar crimes and a way to raise
money for schools, libraries, police departments and prisons. By
last year the Federal Government had an inventory of seized property
worth $2 billion, up from $33 million in 1979, according to a Federal
study. Billions more have already been sold at auction. By some
estimates, the states have collected even more, although no precise
figures exist. But to a growing number of critics, the seizing of
suspects' property--asset forfeiture, as it is called--is out of
control, a system all too easily abused by overzealous prosecutors
eager to meet budget targets by taking as much property as they can.
.
http://www.erowid.org/freedom/law/forfeiture/forfeiture_media3.shtml
.
Now let us fast forward to today, 2006, to find out if anything has changed:
.
DRUG TASK FORCE FUNDING APPROVED - Friday, February 17, 2006
.
A partial victory today in the fight to keep the North Texas Drug Task
Force alive - During a special meeting this morning, Wichita County
Commissioners agreed to use money collected in drug raid seizures to
fund the Task Force, but the agreement between the city and the county
is not final yet. County Commissioners want a finalized agreement at
their meeting on February 27th. All 24 participating cities and
counties need to sign the agreement. Federal funding runs out on
March 31st so they must have a plan before then. Wichita County Sheriff
Tom Callahan says life without the Drug Task Force would be miserable
for law enforcement and citizens alike. But with the federal funding
drying up, the future of the program is in jeopardy.
.
It costs about $550,00 to fund the Regional Drug Task Force for a year,
but Wichita Falls city officials have drawn up what Callahan says is an
offer they cannot refuse. Callahan says the city will guarantee funding
for the next year using any forfeiture funds from the Drug Task Force.
That means instead of filling the city`s coffers, any money or property
seized would keep the Task Force alive. All participating cities and
counties also have to agree to turn over drug forfeitures to fund the
program.
.
http://www.kfdx.com/news/default.asp?mode=shownews&id=11055
.
SHERIFF ANNOUNCES RESULTS OF DRUG ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
January 27, 2006
.
Sheriff Jerry Dawson has announced the results of their drug
enforcement officers for 2005. Detective Jim Root of the Macon County
Sheriff's Office works with the Decatur Police Department's street
crimes, tactical unit and narcotics' offices. The two agencies formed
an agreement after Task Force X was disbanded in 2003. Root has
seized $77,157.69 in cash. It should be noted that these seizures
are only a fraction of the drugs and money seized by the Decatur Police
Department, often with the assistance of Root.
.
Source: Decatur, Illinois News Tribune
.
FROM LIBERTARIAN-WORLD:
.
Mass confiscation has become politically fashionable. Politicians and
the courts have created an overwhelming presumption in favor of the
government's right to seize control over private land, private homes,
boats, and cars, and even the cash in people's wallets. While the
dispute over property rights is often portrayed as merely an economic
contest, the power of government officials to seize private property
directly subjugates citizens to the capricious will of those
officials. Once upon a time, possession was nine-tenths of the
law. Nowadays, gossip is sometimes nine-tenths of possession. Thousands
of American citizens are being stripped of their property on the basis
of rumors and unsubstantiated assertions made by the government's
confidential informants.
.
Beginning in 1970, Congress enacted legislation to permit government to
seize property of Mafia organizations and big-time drug
smugglers. In succeeding decades, other forfeiture laws were
enacted, and federal agents can now seize private property under more
than 200 different statutes. From 1985 to 1991, the number of
federal seizures of property under asset forfeiture laws increased by
1500 percent--reaching a total of $644 million. State and local
governments have also seized hundreds of millions of dollars of
property in recent years. According to Steven Kessler, a New York
lawyer who authored a three-volume 1993 study on federal and state
forfeiture, The use of forfeiture has probably increased a hundred-fold
in the last ten years. Thousands of Americans have had their
property confiscated thanks to the forfeiture laws.
Unfortunately, the more forfeiture laws legislatures enacted, the less
attention police seem to pay to major criminals. Representative Henry
Hyde of Illinois noted in June 1993 that 80 percent of the people whose
property is seized by the federal government under drug laws are never
formally charged with any crime. Representative John Conyers of
Michigan declared at a June 1993 congressional hearing: "A law designed
to give cops the right to confiscate and keep the luxury possessions of
major drug dealers mostly ensnares the modest homes, cars and
hard-earned cash of ordinary, law-abiding people
.
http://www.libertarianworld.com/Property-Seizure-Rights.html
.
THE ACLU SAYS:
.
Thanks to civil asset forfeiture laws, possessions that took you a
lifetime to acquire can be taken in the blink of an eye, or, more
accurately, the flash of a badge," the advertisement says. "The
forfeiture laws were designed as a new government weapon in the 'war on
drugs.' But they've done little more than provide law enforcement with
a license to steal
.
http://archive.aclu.org/forfeiture/
.
So, you are concerned about FARC, an organization that accumulates
funding by gunpoint and other forced confiscation of one type or
another in order to keep itself operating? I too am concerned
about this and many other terrorist organizations like it, including
those operating with a state sanctioned license as well. You are
concerned about some organization making decisions to confiscate your
assets (or not) based upon the information they can gather or glean
regarding your net worth, and if it worthwhile or not for them to come
and get you (banking information databases in your example). I
would say that where there is a will, there is a way. How tempted
would any person or agency be (knowing that their salary and operations
budget for their organization literally depended upon how much loot
they hauled in during the year)? Now, let us take this a step
further and bit more hi-tech. Let us say apart from that, some
person or agency had inside information or knowledge about who was a
plumper target. Would they spend their time chasing the guy with
US$200 in his pocket or would they spend their time chasing a guy that
they already knew had perhaps US$9,000 in his pocket? You wanted
to know if there is any database, and how is it being used? If
you were the person that had no choice but to confiscate the private
property and assets of another in order to survive financially (meaning
government and or government agencies in this case), AND you also had
the ability to create a tracking system or data-base to help you do so
- would you or would you not do it (regardless if illegal, immoral,
etc.)? This original RICO statue in now over 30 years old and was
originally put in place to confiscate the assets of mobsters
(supposedly). Today, it has gone through a metamorphosis to
legitimize and legalize the confiscation of US$7,000 worth of cash from
a guy passing through the airport on his way home for his mothers
funeral, and the Buick of a middle-class factory worker because his
idiot daughter borrowed the car one night to buy illegal drugs with
friends, and a entire slew of very similar kinds of incidents like
this. You tell me where this is all going - and worse, how this
might be used in the future going forward to possibly fund all the debt
and other expenses coming due. In the very recent news story
above, the argument is made for a confiscation funded law enforcement
program because the federal funding is drying up. I wonder then,
what waits around the corner when other kinds of revenue shortages and
income shortfalls starting popping up? I am of course
specifically thinking about the US National Debt, Social Security and
Medicare, etc, and so on. Where will they get the money from
indeed?
.
|
|
|
