Johnny D. Symon
Money speaks louder than words
By Johnny D. Symon
(First published April 11, 2005)
With the death of Prince Rainier III of Monaco last week, Prince Albert, his son, takes his place as head of one of the two smallest countries in the world. Monaco is a well-known tax haven and a favored place of residence for some of the world's rich and elite, and thanks to the Prince's death, residents will be re-examining their options should Albert be forced to take Monaco on a slightly different fiscal route than its direction during the past 55 years.
The leftist media in Spain are making a big deal about Monaco's "Tax Exile" status. Last Thursday morning's 9 o'clock Breakfast Show on TV1 spouted off about Monaco's "lack of transparency" and its tax haven status, and hoped for an end to it. If there's one thing that unites all persuasions of leftists, it has to be the "right to own property," because, when push comes to shove, they'll all declare the State as having control over the free movement of people and their wealth.
In my editorial called "Europe's Painful Travail" (December, 2004,) where I summarized the history of the Spanish communist party, IU, and its apparent misfortunes over the last three general elections that saw a loss of over 50 percent of its supporters, I said:
"Far from proving communism to be in decline it simply proves that the governing party of Spain (PSOE) has provided a new home for half of the IU's members since that time. Communists had become so frustrated with the fact that the IU had no chance of governing Spain they moved to a party that had a chance where their communist dream could become a reality."
Last week's victory by the Communists in Italy's regional elections further bears this out, where, with a turnout of over 70 percent, the Center Left Communist party took control.
"Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?
then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil."
— Jeremiah 13.23
Communist supporters in Europe are simply moving a little closer to the center, donning a new coat but retaining their failed ideals. One of their main ideals is to subjugate the individual by gaining control of their property.
Even within the Republican party in the United States, communists lurk ...
Anyone who denies an individual the right to take his legally declared and taxed income to another place, for his own use, without telling Big Brother about it, is a commie. The argument communists use follows the old line: "Those rules are in place to catch drug barons, mafia, terrorists and money launderers." This argument is seriously flawed, because if your income were transparent enough to be seen to be honestly earned, declared and taxed, what remains should be yours to do with as you please (legally, of course), so why should the government believe it has a further right to keep an eye on your already taxed property?
A convicted sex offender in the state of Texas has to have a sign placed on the front door of his home, warning potential visitors of his status. That sign apparently stays there for the duration of his life. Now, imagine: Would it be fair if the Texas Department of Corrections placed a sign on the front door of the home of every unmarried/single man living in the state of Texas, warning visitors that the occupant, being a man, someday might become a sex offender? Of course not! So, why do we accept the brand of "potential money launderer" if we are merely involved in creating, legally and honestly, wealth for ourselves?
To answer that question requires much more editorial space than I have here, but here's part of the answer, bearing in mind Big Brother is broke: Let's say you have worked in the family firm for 40 years, then sell up, pay all your taxes, and head to South Africa, where you divide up your nest egg in several ways — stocks and bonds, real estate and some gold. You then receive sound advice to invest in colored diamonds. Within five years the net value of colored diamonds shoots through the roof, and you hit the big time, but — you fail to inform the government of this fact. What will happen? Most likely you will go to jail for a very long time. You had foolishly believed it was your money, but the government thinks it is theirs.
It's a mentality commonly called "All property is theft," unless it's owned by the government, of course. But governments are at an advantage because, although they commonly get into debt, they feel free to print themselves out of debt by producing more money. If you tried that yourself you'd go down for a very long spell.
As for the term "money laundering," it's a new concept that was born as a Big Idea, for the first time in the history of the world, in 1986, in the good old U S of A! Arguments that were used to establish this law are pure crud, since the bad guys are wealthy enough to employ the best minds in the investment world to avoid falling into that trap. And even if the occasional bad guy, such as a major drug baron, makes a mistake, he can always rely on the likes of Bill Clinton to clear his name with an executive order several days before the end of his presidency! Now that's another benefit the average Joe can never expect.
As money launderers go, politicos are near the top of the pile. Tax systems are built with hidden loopholes that originally were placed there for sound reasons; our Intelligence Operatives have to carry out their business, at the best of times, out of sight and mind of communist politicos, especially those in the Senate. Unfortunately those politicos feel obliged to use that system to feather their own nests. From there, others get to hear about it, and when too many exploit the system, our fiscals tweak it, close the hole, and secretly open a new one somewhere else.
The U.S. stands out as one of the few countries that tax their citizens on worldwide income. You see, contrary to all the promises made of lower taxes, or a fairer tax system, the opposite always happens.
Even during the great years of Ronald Reagan individual income tax collected by the IRS went up. The mistake commonly made by most tax observers is to accept unconditionally the individual tax-rate percentage, missing out the hidden mechanism that reveals the opposite effect. Although Reagan reduced the individual tax rate for the highest earners to 27 percent, most deduction benefits that existed prior to the cut were eliminated. Furthermore, the tax shelter mechanism was removed too. For most high earning individuals the top tax rate became, in effect, a flat tax on their total income, so the majority of highly taxed individuals were actually paying 34 to 35 percent, and that was before paying state and city taxes, too. In real terms, taxes actually went up, not down.
To further complicate matters I must point out that Americans, legally resident abroad, who work and pay taxes to their host country find themselves paying two taxes if their annual income exceeds $75,000. The more you earn, the more you owe two tax systems. It is, in effect, a fiscal double entendre! One must first recognize what constitutes a tax, then gather them all together and add them up. Inflation is a tax. Medicare and Social Security are too. The rising price of crude is a tax on your income — last time I checked, Brent was $57 a barrel!
Here's an example of what to look for to determine the basic rise and/or fall of individual tax rates, taken from the records of the IRS, which collected, in the year
1970, $83.9 billion
1975, $124.5 billion
1980, $250.3 billion
1985, $325.7 billion
1990, $447.1 billion
We all know what happened to individual taxes after that. Therefore, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for G W Bush's tax reform promises. But if he delivers I promise to reveal the full details behind his reform that will most certainly prove the reform a deform.
Let's face facts: G W would not be permitted to reduce taxes to a true flat rate of, say, 17 percent. According to the Treasury, that figure is unworkable. The lowest rate I can come up with as a workable figure is 25 percent, but you would then have to add on Social Security, state tax and local income taxes, estate duties, inheritance tax, death duties, etc. At the end of the day, you would come up with roughly the same tax rates as before, quite possibly higher ... a stalemate!
The Holy See, or Vatican City (the other smallest country I alluded to earlier — and another tax haven), is strangely enough an insurance policy for tax exiles currently resident in Monaco. Should Monaco bow to international pressure and cease to be a favorable tax haven, the Holy See will then become "wholly sole" focus of attention. The 2004 CIA Factbook describes the industries of this "country" as follows:
"Printing; production of coins, medals, postage stamps, a small amount of mosaics and staff uniforms; worldwide banking and financial activities."
Please note the "order according to merit": (1) printing, (2) coins, (3) medals, (4) stamps, (5) mosaics, (6) uniforms, and last, but apparently least (7) worldwide banking and financial activities!
Now that's how we'd like to be classified by government, right? If Uncle Sam took more interest in our medal and uniform collections, and less interest in our "banking and financial activities" I'd be a very happy man indeed — wouldn't you?
So why is it that most politicos steer clear of requesting transparency in the Holy See's "worldwide financial activities," and prefer to concentrate their efforts on the individual and his financial efforts? Why should Monaco be the sole target of Big Brother's money-hungry appetite, while the second of the smallest tax haven countries is free to do as it pleases? And especially since Monaco is purely a tax haven for resident people and companies, not an offshore banking center, which Vatican City most certainly is ...
"On one Friday evening, before the sabbath consecration the Rabbi returned to his room locking the door. Suddenly it opened, and out he came. The house was full of his disciples in the white satin robes the great zaddikim used to wear in those days. And the Rabbi spoke: "It is written: 'and repayeth them that hate Him to their face, to destroy them.' This is what it means: He pays his haters for the good works they do in this world in spite of themselves, in order to destroy them in the world to come. And so I ask you: given that the wrong-doer is greedy for gold, well then, he will receive his fill of gold; and given the wrong-doer is greedy for honors, well then, he shall have his fill of honors. But now suppose the wrong-doer is not out for honors, and not for gold, but for spiritual rungs, or that he is out to be a rabbi — what then? Well then, he who is out for spiritual rungs, will mount them, and he who is out to be a rabbi, will become one — in order to be destroyed in the coming world."
That's why I spend my life listening to words and promises, then standing back in the hope of seeing physical action. In this case, surprise, surprise! — it never came, despite the fact that it could be seen as a test case for full euthanasia.
"You cram these words into mine ears,
against the stomach of my sense."
— Shakespeare
What would you have done to help Terri Schindler if you were the owner and president of a tax-exempt country? But to strike a balance I have to also point out the lack of help from other groups and institutions. In the case of Terri Schindler, money would have spoken louder than words.
All failed in coming to terms with the real issue; Life or Death!
"But whoso hath this world's good,
and seeth his brother have need,
and shutteth up his bowels of compassion
from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?"
— I John 3:17
Until next time ... Johnny D
© Johnny D. Symon
(First published April 11, 2005)
With the death of Prince Rainier III of Monaco last week, Prince Albert, his son, takes his place as head of one of the two smallest countries in the world. Monaco is a well-known tax haven and a favored place of residence for some of the world's rich and elite, and thanks to the Prince's death, residents will be re-examining their options should Albert be forced to take Monaco on a slightly different fiscal route than its direction during the past 55 years.
The leftist media in Spain are making a big deal about Monaco's "Tax Exile" status. Last Thursday morning's 9 o'clock Breakfast Show on TV1 spouted off about Monaco's "lack of transparency" and its tax haven status, and hoped for an end to it. If there's one thing that unites all persuasions of leftists, it has to be the "right to own property," because, when push comes to shove, they'll all declare the State as having control over the free movement of people and their wealth.
In my editorial called "Europe's Painful Travail" (December, 2004,) where I summarized the history of the Spanish communist party, IU, and its apparent misfortunes over the last three general elections that saw a loss of over 50 percent of its supporters, I said:
"Far from proving communism to be in decline it simply proves that the governing party of Spain (PSOE) has provided a new home for half of the IU's members since that time. Communists had become so frustrated with the fact that the IU had no chance of governing Spain they moved to a party that had a chance where their communist dream could become a reality."
Last week's victory by the Communists in Italy's regional elections further bears this out, where, with a turnout of over 70 percent, the Center Left Communist party took control.
"Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?
then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil."
— Jeremiah 13.23
Communist supporters in Europe are simply moving a little closer to the center, donning a new coat but retaining their failed ideals. One of their main ideals is to subjugate the individual by gaining control of their property.
Even within the Republican party in the United States, communists lurk ...
Anyone who denies an individual the right to take his legally declared and taxed income to another place, for his own use, without telling Big Brother about it, is a commie. The argument communists use follows the old line: "Those rules are in place to catch drug barons, mafia, terrorists and money launderers." This argument is seriously flawed, because if your income were transparent enough to be seen to be honestly earned, declared and taxed, what remains should be yours to do with as you please (legally, of course), so why should the government believe it has a further right to keep an eye on your already taxed property?
A convicted sex offender in the state of Texas has to have a sign placed on the front door of his home, warning potential visitors of his status. That sign apparently stays there for the duration of his life. Now, imagine: Would it be fair if the Texas Department of Corrections placed a sign on the front door of the home of every unmarried/single man living in the state of Texas, warning visitors that the occupant, being a man, someday might become a sex offender? Of course not! So, why do we accept the brand of "potential money launderer" if we are merely involved in creating, legally and honestly, wealth for ourselves?
To answer that question requires much more editorial space than I have here, but here's part of the answer, bearing in mind Big Brother is broke: Let's say you have worked in the family firm for 40 years, then sell up, pay all your taxes, and head to South Africa, where you divide up your nest egg in several ways — stocks and bonds, real estate and some gold. You then receive sound advice to invest in colored diamonds. Within five years the net value of colored diamonds shoots through the roof, and you hit the big time, but — you fail to inform the government of this fact. What will happen? Most likely you will go to jail for a very long time. You had foolishly believed it was your money, but the government thinks it is theirs.
It's a mentality commonly called "All property is theft," unless it's owned by the government, of course. But governments are at an advantage because, although they commonly get into debt, they feel free to print themselves out of debt by producing more money. If you tried that yourself you'd go down for a very long spell.
As for the term "money laundering," it's a new concept that was born as a Big Idea, for the first time in the history of the world, in 1986, in the good old U S of A! Arguments that were used to establish this law are pure crud, since the bad guys are wealthy enough to employ the best minds in the investment world to avoid falling into that trap. And even if the occasional bad guy, such as a major drug baron, makes a mistake, he can always rely on the likes of Bill Clinton to clear his name with an executive order several days before the end of his presidency! Now that's another benefit the average Joe can never expect.
As money launderers go, politicos are near the top of the pile. Tax systems are built with hidden loopholes that originally were placed there for sound reasons; our Intelligence Operatives have to carry out their business, at the best of times, out of sight and mind of communist politicos, especially those in the Senate. Unfortunately those politicos feel obliged to use that system to feather their own nests. From there, others get to hear about it, and when too many exploit the system, our fiscals tweak it, close the hole, and secretly open a new one somewhere else.
The U.S. stands out as one of the few countries that tax their citizens on worldwide income. You see, contrary to all the promises made of lower taxes, or a fairer tax system, the opposite always happens.
Even during the great years of Ronald Reagan individual income tax collected by the IRS went up. The mistake commonly made by most tax observers is to accept unconditionally the individual tax-rate percentage, missing out the hidden mechanism that reveals the opposite effect. Although Reagan reduced the individual tax rate for the highest earners to 27 percent, most deduction benefits that existed prior to the cut were eliminated. Furthermore, the tax shelter mechanism was removed too. For most high earning individuals the top tax rate became, in effect, a flat tax on their total income, so the majority of highly taxed individuals were actually paying 34 to 35 percent, and that was before paying state and city taxes, too. In real terms, taxes actually went up, not down.
To further complicate matters I must point out that Americans, legally resident abroad, who work and pay taxes to their host country find themselves paying two taxes if their annual income exceeds $75,000. The more you earn, the more you owe two tax systems. It is, in effect, a fiscal double entendre! One must first recognize what constitutes a tax, then gather them all together and add them up. Inflation is a tax. Medicare and Social Security are too. The rising price of crude is a tax on your income — last time I checked, Brent was $57 a barrel!
Here's an example of what to look for to determine the basic rise and/or fall of individual tax rates, taken from the records of the IRS, which collected, in the year
1970, $83.9 billion
1975, $124.5 billion
1980, $250.3 billion
1985, $325.7 billion
1990, $447.1 billion
We all know what happened to individual taxes after that. Therefore, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for G W Bush's tax reform promises. But if he delivers I promise to reveal the full details behind his reform that will most certainly prove the reform a deform.
Let's face facts: G W would not be permitted to reduce taxes to a true flat rate of, say, 17 percent. According to the Treasury, that figure is unworkable. The lowest rate I can come up with as a workable figure is 25 percent, but you would then have to add on Social Security, state tax and local income taxes, estate duties, inheritance tax, death duties, etc. At the end of the day, you would come up with roughly the same tax rates as before, quite possibly higher ... a stalemate!
The Holy See, or Vatican City (the other smallest country I alluded to earlier — and another tax haven), is strangely enough an insurance policy for tax exiles currently resident in Monaco. Should Monaco bow to international pressure and cease to be a favorable tax haven, the Holy See will then become "wholly sole" focus of attention. The 2004 CIA Factbook describes the industries of this "country" as follows:
"Printing; production of coins, medals, postage stamps, a small amount of mosaics and staff uniforms; worldwide banking and financial activities."
Please note the "order according to merit": (1) printing, (2) coins, (3) medals, (4) stamps, (5) mosaics, (6) uniforms, and last, but apparently least (7) worldwide banking and financial activities!
Now that's how we'd like to be classified by government, right? If Uncle Sam took more interest in our medal and uniform collections, and less interest in our "banking and financial activities" I'd be a very happy man indeed — wouldn't you?
So why is it that most politicos steer clear of requesting transparency in the Holy See's "worldwide financial activities," and prefer to concentrate their efforts on the individual and his financial efforts? Why should Monaco be the sole target of Big Brother's money-hungry appetite, while the second of the smallest tax haven countries is free to do as it pleases? And especially since Monaco is purely a tax haven for resident people and companies, not an offshore banking center, which Vatican City most certainly is ...
"On one Friday evening, before the sabbath consecration the Rabbi returned to his room locking the door. Suddenly it opened, and out he came. The house was full of his disciples in the white satin robes the great zaddikim used to wear in those days. And the Rabbi spoke: "It is written: 'and repayeth them that hate Him to their face, to destroy them.' This is what it means: He pays his haters for the good works they do in this world in spite of themselves, in order to destroy them in the world to come. And so I ask you: given that the wrong-doer is greedy for gold, well then, he will receive his fill of gold; and given the wrong-doer is greedy for honors, well then, he shall have his fill of honors. But now suppose the wrong-doer is not out for honors, and not for gold, but for spiritual rungs, or that he is out to be a rabbi — what then? Well then, he who is out for spiritual rungs, will mount them, and he who is out to be a rabbi, will become one — in order to be destroyed in the coming world."
-
Tales of the Hasidim, Martin Buber
That's why I spend my life listening to words and promises, then standing back in the hope of seeing physical action. In this case, surprise, surprise! — it never came, despite the fact that it could be seen as a test case for full euthanasia.
"You cram these words into mine ears,
against the stomach of my sense."
— Shakespeare
What would you have done to help Terri Schindler if you were the owner and president of a tax-exempt country? But to strike a balance I have to also point out the lack of help from other groups and institutions. In the case of Terri Schindler, money would have spoken louder than words.
All failed in coming to terms with the real issue; Life or Death!
"But whoso hath this world's good,
and seeth his brother have need,
and shutteth up his bowels of compassion
from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?"
— I John 3:17
Until next time ... Johnny D
© Johnny D. Symon
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
