Slashdot Mirror
Prediction Market Site InTrade Bans US Customers
MyFirstNameIsPaul writes "In an announcement dated Monday, Nov 26, 2012, Dublin-based InTrade stated 'that due to legal and regulatory pressures, InTrade can no longer allow U.S. residents to participate in our real-money prediction markets.' The Washington Post reports that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed a complaint in federal court against InTrade for 'illegally facilitating bets on future economic data, the price of gold and even acts of war,' demonstrating just how far the long arm of U.S. law can reach."
"InTrade can no longer allow U.S. residents to participate in our real-money prediction markets"..."demonstrating just how far the long arm of U.S. law can reach"
US law being applied to US residents?! Outrageous!
If they want to deal with customers, they have to deal with the local legality of their product and/or service. It's not like the US getting mad at online gambling sites is new, you know.
Why is it illegal to wager on a prediction?
Or is this just being treated as a special case of on-line gambling, which apparently the world would end if allowed.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Is the long arm of the law reaching too far? Sounds like a gambling company was operating in the US, or at least for US customers. Gambling is illegal (unless the government is in on it, a discussion for another day :) in the US. Therefore they filed a complaint. Sounds like everything is legit.
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
The US law affecting the US citizens, what's that got to do with "long arm"?
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
I have said it and will say it again. You with your vote (or your non voting) got the people into Congress who limited your ability to bet on future events. Don't complain about the laws Congress makes!
You can wager on where the price will go on Gold, the economy, interest rates, etc ....
It's called the options and futures market here in the US. It's heavily regulated and requires capital.
The thing is with this site is that I wouldn't trust it. At least here in the States, something nefarious happens on an exchange or with a broker, I can at least get arbitration packed with industry insiders via FINRA (Finra.org)
I, for one, am very glad these unlicensed options traders are getting stamped out! There's no room in the economy for these shenanigans! Just think what could happen if people started massively trading options on unregulated exchanges - people would start speculating, maybe betting on, say, housing prices going up or down, and before you know it, we could have a housing assets bubble that would burst, bring down the economy and require massive government bailouts! I'm so glad that options trading is restricted only to regulated, licensed exchanges where such things couldn't ever happen......
The lesson here is this: if you're a small person trying to speculate - that's bad! If you're a giant investment bank trying to speculate - go right ahead, just as long as your dealer^H^H^H exchange is "regulated".
Yeah so when the German government decides to go postal on Google for not censoring Nazi-related searches on Google.de, which may or may not be hosted from US territory, I'm sure you'll be more than fine with Google having to bend to the will of Germany, right? Or how about China...? Ohhhh and what about when Pakistan decides to charge YouTube executives with blasphemy for being "incorrigible" about allowing blasphemous videos on YouTube?
Not really. The CEO of Bet on Sports, was a UK Citizen, living in Costa Rica and was arrested while changing planes in the US just because some of his customers turned out to be US citizens. He spent 33 months in jail, as I understand it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Carruthers
-- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
No brokerage in the UK will allow a "US person" to open an account. This has been true for at least 3 years and probably more.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Then you failed to convince others that your choice is better. If the majority has a different opinion than you, your opinion is per definitionem a fringe opinion.
I have said it and will say it again. You with your vote (or your non voting) got the people into Congress who limited your ability to bet on future events. Don't complain about the laws Congress makes!
Voting or not voting has nothing to do with complaining. At this point, we are too far gone for 'elections' to make any difference. Our freedom went out the window when we decided that 50+1 % can make law. That is called the tyranny of the majority. For some it takes away freedom to intrade, for others freedom to smoke pot, for some the ability to buy and sell raw milk, or sleep on a mattress without fire retardants, or continue to purchase incandescent light bulbs.
It is becoming more and more obvious that these restrictions are not for our own good, or even for the children. It is simply about control - getting millions of people to do or not do something at the will of our leaders. When we as people do that to animals, it is called a farm - and they are called cattle. What does that make you?
I had money down at InTrade betting that this was going to happen. Now how am I supposed to get my money!?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
"Listen, the government gave you a choice between Goldman Sachs and Goldman Sachs in the last election, so you can't complain that Goldman Sachs is raping your future!"
Yes, that follows logically . . .
Then why can I trade on the London Stock Exchange? It is not a US regulated market. Is it that we consider UK regulated markets as US regulated markets?
I'd assume so, given all the treaties that the USA has with Great Britain.
http://betsofbitco.in/ has no restrictions on location. They're probably totally legal here as well, because except for sports gambling, and futures markets specifically, there are no US federal laws prohibiting gambling. Several laws (The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, The Federal Wire Wager Act, 18 U.S.C. 1084) prohibit the transfer of funds by wire for purposes of gambling, but gambling itself is only regulated at the state level (with the two specific exemptions above.)
and IRS already can deny you your passport or even revoke your passport so you can't go outside of country if you owe more than some dollar amount in taxes (25K or so).
You mean there are punishments for breaking the law? Oh my God, that is just draconian! /s
But where are you going to go if your government abuses you?
I'm going to realize that this is not abuse, and quit being a pussy.
Nobody has to agree, that is true. However, it IS your job to convince others that your opinion is better, if you want your opinion to gain traction.
I fail to see how that does anything but prove RP completely wrong. Are you saying that those people are not able to have their own opinion on current events? I notice you didn't say anything about them actually doing anything.
InTrade predictions are less gambling than the stock market. At least the predictions on InTrade are less affected by random unscrupulous manipulators. Take the predictions of the ice cover on the Arctic, for instance: if you did your homework, you knew there would be very little ice cover on the Arctic this year, and could bet accordingly.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
I think you mean: "Listen, Goldman Sachs gave you a choice between Goldman Sachs and Goldman Sachs in the last election, so you can't complain that the government is raping your future!"
In the company of intelligent people, merely exposing an opinion they might not have thought of can be productive.
Isn't that what BitCoin is for?
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
Shut down the loopholes that people use to reduce their taxes and to avoid various regulations and laws and you will put the final, very tough nail into the America economy. The only reason that USA had an economy during the 40s and the 50s, when the nominal marginal tax rate as stupidly high, over 90% and later over 70% and such, was because there were plenty of ways not to pay the taxes.
Americans at the time when nominal taxes were high didn't pay any of those nominal taxes. They could deduct any of their losses from any of their gains dollar for dollar. You lost on house depreciation or on a stock deal or you lost on a casino bet, you just deducted it from wherever you profited, be it your salary or any type of investment. The businessmen of the time bought the most lavish things, bought memberships in the most exclusive clubs, had yachts and airplanes, all of those things were completely tax deductible.
Think about this: why would you NOT buy something expensive, you are getting it at a 91% discount! If your choices are: out of every 1000 bucks give 910 to the gov't and keep 90 OR spend the 1000 bucks and don't pay any taxes on it, what do you think people would do? Because after all, when they spent the 1000 bucks, it's as if they spent 90 bucks but got 1000 dollars worth of product for it.
So if a fancy chair costs 10,000USD and you could either give gov't 9,100 and keep 900 or buy that fancy chair, you bought the chair! You bought the chair for 10,000USD at the 91% discount, because otherwise you'd still only have 900 bucks in your pocket from that 10,000 and you couldn't buy a 10,000 dollar chair with 900 bucks.
The US economy of forties, fifties, sixties did well not because of ANYTHING that gov't did but very much despite of EVERYTHING that it did. The Japanese and the rest got a wind of that, the US economy was stagnating because of lack of investment and the Japanese were investing, and I am not talking about government.
The 91% income tax or 70% income tax or 50% income tax or any income taxes modify your behaviour. The higher the taxes are the less likely you are to invest.
Buffet again came out with a nonsense piece of propaganda, stating that investors don't care about taxes, if you see that you can make 10% in profit, but you'll be taxed at 91% of your gains, you'll still take the deal because you'll be ahead of fixed gov't income (which is nothing today).
That's a lot of hooey. There are no risk free investments. If you invest in something and even your odds of making 100% of money back is 50% chance, you are going to be very much wary of the tax situation.
Your loss is 100% of your investment (and that's after tax money) in case it goes sour. But your gain is 9% at 91% tax rate. Well, guess what, this means you are risking your investment too much. If you invest $100,000 (that's after tax money, because that's either your personal income or it's money that corporation records as profit, so that's already post-corporate and possibly post-personal income taxes), if you invest 100,000K and your chances of making 200,000K are 50/50, then at 91% tax rate what you are really saying that you have 50% chance of losing your money (gov't isn't going to backstop it for you, unless you are a big bank of-course, but big banks don't invest in private businesses anymore, they only launder Feds fake credit into gov't Treasuries).
So 50% chance of losing your 100,000K and 50% chance of making 9K. That's very stupid, you compare that to any other less risky thing you can do and you rather do that.
A more real world like situation is that your investment has less than 10% chance of success and 90% chance of failure. That's what happens to VCs in America, that's why they shut down, they expect stupid taxes and they figured out this simple math:
10 people come to you asking for investment money.
You give each one of them 100K for example, that's 1Million.
Now 9 of them lose your money, that's 900K out of the window. IF YOU ARE LUCKY 1 o
You can't handle the truth.
I, for one, am very glad these unlicensed options traders are getting stamped out! There's no room in the economy for these shenanigans! Just think what could happen if people started massively trading options on unregulated exchanges - people would start speculating, maybe betting on, say, housing prices going up or down, and before you know it, we could have a housing assets bubble that would burst, bring down the economy and require massive government bailouts! I'm so glad that options trading is restricted only to regulated, licensed exchanges where such things couldn't ever happen...... The lesson here is this: if you're a small person trying to speculate - that's bad! If you're a giant investment bank trying to speculate - go right ahead, just as long as your dealer^H^H^H exchange is "regulated". http://www.readenews.com/2012/02/10-classy-speakers-to-match-your-white.html
I guess slander and libel aren't "a thing" now.
>Implying that didn't happen everywhere in the entire world.
>Implying that there was no such thing as the Industrial Revolution
>Implying that wealth is generated by everyone sitting in a circle singing Kumbaya
Except with governments there is precedent for that. LOTS of precedent.
You support removing the fundamental right to travel from people because they owe money to someone?
You're a monster.
The above applies only to China's manufactured goods and major oil producing nations.
Something practically anyone (nation) can do is sell their US treasuries, and use the resulting dollars to buy real goods. Enough people do that, and it will cause catastrophic hyperinflation in the US.
In a sane setup, the US regulators would go and prosecute US residents who used illegal services
A simpler way would simply to make any debts associated with locally illegal services unenforceable. That way everyone's laws can stick to their own borders and it becomes very hard to offer services from one country where they are legal to another where they are not.
Protip: if you dis the Chinese government, stay out of China. If you make cartoons of Mohammed, stay out of Iran. If you break a UK law while in the US that involves UK citizens, you're a fool to visit Britain. If you have unprotected sex with a Swede in New Jersey, stay the hell out of Sweden.
Free Martian Whores!
Hello, anyone in there??? How would people buying and selling EVENT futures based on housing prices, on an Irish exchange, affect the ACTUAL prices of housing? Housing prices were driven up by low interest rates, lax credit qualifications putting more people into the market, and HOMEBUYERS SPECULATING on the homes themselves. No futures market is going to affect that. The only affect is in the other direction. That's by design.
Do you have any idea what Intrade does, and what their contracts look like? It sounds like you don't.
No of course not, actual prices could never be affected by futures speculation, this has been proven over and over again, just look at commodities, say precious metals like silver, er... Never mind, I meant the energy sector, look at crude oil and gasoline prices, where you can clearly see that... No, wait, wait, I uh... Surely there must be, um, something,,, /sarcasm
Seriously, you honestly think the packaging of real estate mortgages into futures-like securities had no effect on the actual prices of homes during the run up to the meltdown??? Or that what's being discussed here is so very different from that?? Are we living in the same universe? In my world the real estate bubble was almost entirely driven by the big banks and big institutionalized traders, the poor home owners mostly just got taken along for the ride, either intentionally or by happenstance.
Unless "the law" means "whatever the U.S. government wants." They filed a complaint in their own courts, which have no jurisdiction over Ireland, and an Irish company caved in under what was an empty threat.
Liberty in your lifetime
You can't open a foreign bank account
That's a GOOD thing. It keeps the rich bastards from laundring money and evading the taxes they don't pay enough of anyway. Whether or not there's a law against opening a foreign bank account, normal people never were free to do so. See, that's one thing wrong with mainstream libertarianism, it's freedom for the rich to do whatever the fuck they want. Any "freedom" I can't have I have no trouble with the government keeping from your rich ass.
however business cannot abuse you if you don't want it to
Mitt, is that you? Or are you Don Trump? I see you've never had the misfortune of being out of work and hungry. Tell that to your average WalMart worker. Tell that to anyone who lived by a Monsanto plant before the EPA. Tell that to someone who earns their living fishing in the gulf when BP ruined it.
But where are you going to go if your government abuses you?
To the polls. Where am I going to go when Amerin abuses me? I have no other choice of natural gas.
They are certainly now making it harder and harder to drop US citizenship.
Wow, a patriot. You rich boys really have an entitlement attitude, don't you?
I like the idea that Americans can't do intrade, because those who can't afford it will try to and be victimized, and the rest, well, fuck 'em. Let them gamble on the Chicaho futures exchange; that's what it's for.
If you want to work for liberty, work for liberty for EVERYONE. Abolish the TSA, abolish the border "no 4th amendment zones". Abolish drug laws. Intrade doesn't affect me or any other of the 97%, so you know what? We don't give a flying fuck about your "rights" because if I don't have that right, neither should you.
Free Martian Whores!
Look up the term "bucket shop" for instance. It is one thing to say be a registered CFTC regulate exchange and regulated FCMs (Futures Commission Merchant), IBs, etc. In this case if I buy a gold contract THERE IS GOLD behind that contract, there is sufficient liquidity to guarantee that the trade will settle, the DTC or some other facility will insure that trades ARE settled, order flow is monitored for front running, etc etc etc. The main point there is however that the liquidity exists and that the investor is actually participating in the market.
For instance a bucket shop would simply let you 'buy' gold for instance, but in reality they would just take your money. If gold goes down and you exit the market they get to keep some of that money. If OTOH it goes up and you take your profit they can't cover it (except by raiding someone else's account). InTrade isn't participating in markets, it is just letting you 'bet', which is not the same thing. You're playing the market effectively AGAINST them.
Interestingly the only market where this effectively DOES work is spot FX. Because there is nothing but cash in FX in different currencies all FX trading IS in effect betting. Even then the US now pretty much forbids retail FX trading, the business has moved overseas.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
Exactly. Which is the reason why InTrade is no longer accepting US customers. This is also true for a huge number of "unregulated" financial services companies based in Europe and elsewhere. More and more are now refusing to accept US customers, even simple ForEx companies. In some cases the US government works with the national and local governments of the areas that the firms operate from and use treaties to force compliance. In other cases where the treaties aren't in effect, the US just makes a long list of threats, such as arresting company officers the minute they are found within a US jurisdiction, arresting company employees, freezing assets located in the US and also within nations "friendly" to the US, and so on. Once they read the story of Mr. Carruthers most executives agree to comply and implement their no-US policies.
US restrictions on where and how US citizens can engage in financial transactions around the globe are far reaching. You can't even have more than $10k in an account outside the US or send or receive $10k to or from foreign sources without reporting it to the IRS. US financial regulations prohibit foriegn firms from soliciting certain investment products to US citizens, and this definition of "solicitation" INCLUDES simply have a website in English. So most of these firms just stick with their no-US policy. Even those that take US citizens make you swear that you sought them out first without viewing their webpage to comply with the rediculous US rule.
But don't worry - there's always a loophole for those who "contribute" to their congressman's re-election campaigns. In most cases a US citizen can set up an offshore corporation, and that corporation could engage in many activities that are illegal for US individuals. Such corporations can usually set up business accounts with the same companies that ban US citizens. Foreign based "nominee" officers, directors, registered agents, and shareholders can be provided by specialty firms if the citizenship of the corporate officer becomes and obstacle. But US laws and regulations involving such entities and extremely complex with severe consequences for non-compliance. They are usually reserved for "qualified" investors like Mitt Romney who can hire a full time team of CPAs to ensure compliance. And of course there are mafia thugs who set up the same offshore companies with much less concern about compliance. Just google "offshore corporation", "offshore banking", and "offshore asset protection" to learn more.
Americans - you need to understand that you are a free people with protected freedoms, as long as you practice those freedoms as subjects of US jurisdiction regardless of where you travel, reside, or with whom you do business. Yes, technically, you can't even buy a Cuban cigar and smoke it where they are sold without restriction just across the borders in Canada and Mexico. And for you perverts who travel to Thailand to engage in acts that are illegal in the US, expect to be prosecuted upon your return to US territory - it happens quite regularly.
Take this argument to the extreme, and all voting is an act of aggression, since by your vote you are sanctioning a third party to have authority over your neighbor. Factor in the power of a few media moguls to sway public opinion of large populations and the campaign contributions of the top 1% who hold the majority of the nation's (and the world's) wealth, and look what you end up with.
A smarter government would actually follow the federal style the founders envisioned, where a smaller population has more potential to represent the will of the people since grassroots movements would hold more sway and citizens would be more involved in their local self-determination. The best example of federalism is probably Switzerland. In fact the country is a good example for the rest of the world to follow. They don't invade other countries or tie themselves into complicated defense treaties, they try to encourage peaceful relations that other countries have with each other, they value financial privacy, maintain diplomatic relationships with just about every nation on earth - even North Korea, religion isn't a factor in political elections, no prohibition of physician assisted suicide, they rarely extradite suspects to other nations, value defense and allow (used to require) citizen-soldiers to keep fully automatic assult rifles in their homes, and yet they also understand the value of maintain an effective social safety net.
Actually, that's not true. The US doesn't ban gambling or exert a federal government monopoly on it, though it does regulate certain kinds of gambling, and prohibit some kinds. (The particular issue here, options trading, isn't a government monopoly -- the exchanges that are approved to do it are regulated by the government, but not operated by the government.) Many US states limit gambling and assert a government monopoly on certain types of gambling (e.g., lotteries), but that's not the federal government.
Oddly enough, in most countries tax evasion is considered a civil matter, not criminal. The US is the only nation rampaging around the world looking for US bank accounts hiding in Switzerland or the Cook or Cayman Islands, threatening to imprison anyone who doesn't spill the beans on every American's private financial details.
The first American convicted in this most recent witch-hunt was the son of a holocaust survivor who's father told him to always keep some cash overseas because you never know when tyranny will come knocking and you'll need that cash to buy your way out of the country before the ghetto walls are sealed.
Most people aren't even aware of the bizarre means with which they can end up "owing" tens of thousands of dollars of US taxes. Say you visit a hospital and somehow or another there is some miscommunication between your providers and your insurance company...or an outright scam...that leaves you owing $100k in medical debt because one of your dozen or so providers at the hospital turned out to be "out of network" (and didn't bother to even inform you that he was treating you. In fact, he may have just been 'observing' you in accordance with state law, and now you're stuck with his bill). Outraged, you refuse to pay, and after 2-3 years of dealing with collection agencies, refusing to pay one penny, they realize that even if they sue you they will still not get paid. So they decide to "forgive" your debt. Which, depending on your income and net worth, could leave you owing $50k in federal tax since the forgiven debt is considered taxable income for that year. This is just one of literally dozens of scenarios thousands of people wake up to in horror every day. In fact, most people who owe thousands in back taxes usually made rather simple decisions in ignorance, and the government doesn't simply allow for transactions to be reversed. It's one of the reasons why most smart people hire well educated CPAs to file every tax return because making just one mistake on a tax return could land you in jail for years and leave your family impoverished for decades. Even though they read the tax language in plain English to mean just what it seemed to be saying, the words used by the IRS rarely follow any of the definition's found in Webster's dictionary.
Taxpayer: "But form 58495 said I don't owe tax as long as I followed rule 3.5.a" .... "
Taxman: "But form 99867 says you do owe tax if you meet condition (b) in tax volume 64, page 973"
Taxpayer: "But how am I supposed to know this when it's impossible to even read one time through the whole tax code in one lifetime?"
Taxman: "Ignorance of the law
I believe in the value of a broad and effective social safety net and I understand that probably means we can't enjoy the benefits of a small and efficient government that doesn't have power to control every detail of a citizen's life. But what has the US become? And yet look at the tangle of strings they call a safety net? We have one of the biggest and most intrusive governments that controls its citizens even after they have permenantly fled the country (try not filing your taxes after moving to Sweden or France and see how long before you're threatened with criminal charges and they try to get you extradited for prosecution). The compromise between Reps and Dems is a big and powerful government that doesn't help it's citizens until they have been means tested into poverty.
The right to flee this country should be added as an amendment to the Constitution. I thought only Communists restricted their citizen's ability to leave their borders.
Unless you are a broker with a seat on the exchange, you can't (you can enter into a contract with a US-licensed brokerage firm who also has a seat -- or perhaps has a relationship with a firm that has a seat -- on the LSE, and have them make the trade on your behalf.) The London Stock Exchange -- like most stock exchanges -- does not directly solicit regular investors (in the US or elsewhere) to trade directly on the exchange, and, unlike Intrade, hasn't previously settled a complaint from the appropriate US regulators charging that it did so by agreeing to a specific set of actions it would take.
No, the actual answer is that options trading (not gambling) is regulated (not prohibited) in the US, including -- specifically -- foreign-operated trading houses that provide "persons located in the US direct access to the electronic trading and order matching system".
That's a bad analogy, since the part of the law which empowers the CFTC in this case empowers them to address foreign trading houses which permit "participants located in the United States with direct access to the electronic trading and order matching system" operated by the trading house. (7 USC Sec. 6(b)(1)(A), emphasis added.)
Businesses don't have sovereignty to encroach upon.
The Canadian and British examples you cite give reason to doubt that FPTP is the sole source of that stable US national duopoly, but they fall well short of making it clear that FPTP has nothing to do with it. In fact, FPTP isn't the sole source, but has quite a lot to do with it.
FPTP creates a strong pressure to a two-party system, but can result in regional two-party systems. (And, in fact, there've been durable regional duopolies in the US that don't reflect the national duopoly, such as the long run of the Farmer-Labor party as the second party along with the Republicans in Minnesota's two-party system, which only became aligned with the national duopoly when the FL party joined wth the Democratic as the DFL party in Minnesota.)
In the US, the fact that in addition to FPTP we also have a strong and separately elected executive administration rather than a government established by a Parliamentary majority (which might be formed by an ad hoc coalition of parties none of which has its own majority) increases the pressure for a national two-party system beyond that seen in countries that have FPTP in a parliamentary system. The stronger pressure for a national two-party system (and thus, the higher bar for a party to survive, as its harder for what nationally might be a minor party to survive as a regional first- or second-party) also makes for a more stable party system that is harder to break into than would be the case in an FPTP parliamentary system.
I agree with holding the rich accountable, but it's easier said than done. Consider for a moment how many people move to America to earn their fortunes, knowing they can always move back to where they came from and retire with millions and a low cost of living. I've been to hospitals where you couldn't find a doctor that didn't have a foreign accent. How often is it that you meet an new member of the management team who was born in some other country? Or engineers? American-born citizens are a minority in most science and engineering PhD programs. But most American-born citizens won't have a second passport or dual citizenship to save them when the SHTF. The people growing rich in this country are not likely to have been born here. Those of us born here with no where to run are often stuck in wage slavery. Heaven forbid you have a child with "special needs", though this happens in 1 out of 5 families. The insurance executives, big pharma, and for-profit hospital execs (and non-profit execs who also make million-dollar salaries) have finally figured out how to game the system for maximum profit at the expense of the vulnerable. We have a "safety net" that makes certain that entire families are means-tested into poverty even if they were educated, employed at well-paid jobs, and had "good" health insurance. Our fearless leaders closed the bankruptcy escape in 2005, and at that time it was considered the financial "nuclear option". Nowadays it's just easier to dodge debt collectors and wait out the SOL rather than attempt an impossible ch.13 five year payment plan that absorbs every "disposable" dollar you take home during your peak earning years. Ch. 13 only has a 30% success rate, at best.
But the same weapons you aim at the rich can just as easily be aimed at the poor and middle class. Those weapons won't stop the rich anyway - they have too many friends in high places, they can hire smart attorneys to exploit well designed and well concealed loopholes, and they will leave the country if the water boils to quickly. After the rich vanish with their wealth, what's left of the middle class will become the next target.
So I'd rather preserve the right for all people to flee this country legally whenever the need should arise. Keeping cash offshore can be a critical component of maintaining that freedom since offshore accounts can't be as easily siezed by the government during a crack-down, so I support the right to do so. Freedom from government oppression should be top priority. The rich benefit directly from their lobbying power, so they can bear an additional share of the load required to maintain the society they choose to live in. But freedom from oppression must be preserved first before taxing the rich man. Demanding too much from the rich will be like ordering the rich man's armed bodyguard to hand you the rich man's wallet. Whose side is the bodyguard going to take, when he's the man with the gun? Not too many liberals in uniform these days - what an ironic pity. It is reasonable to ask the rich to pay a greater share of the common burden, but policies need to be pushed that increase the earning power of the middle class to grow again and offer a counter-balance to the extreme wealth and influence of the Walmart, Oracle, and Koch executives. Taxing the mega-rich is only a short term band-aid and on its own won't be enough to reverse the steady demise of the blue and white collar working classes.
Watch out when you start building guillotines, digging graves, or constructing concentration camps. You'll be the one marching straight into it with a song in your heart and a beat in your step. Student's of history know what I am saying.
As for myself, I'm entertaining a job offer from Sweden, where there are slightly higher taxes but I would save millions in care for my autistic daughter, free college degree for my son, and have less worry of slipping further through the US social safety net. Not to mention 200+ years of neutrality, very low debt to GDP ratio (compare
Tens of Millions of US dollars changed hands on Intrade when Obama was re-elected.
Seems that the many people in the "Fox Information Containment Bubble" thought is they would triple their money. The Obama supporters (and anyone who read 538) realized a 50% return on investment.
OMFG. BRAIN HURTS.
Wish I had gotten in on it in time. It's like a tax on stupid people.
your rants about the rich make you look stupid.
Get a job.
Please login to access my lawn
your rants about the rich make you look stupid. Get a job.
That's rich, son. I've been working full time since 1968 except for two years during the Reagan-Bush recession when I spent eight hours a day looking for work. I'm solid middle class; I have all I need and give quite a bit away. My rants aren't about the rich, they're about the rich's entitlement attitude and the idiotic notion that they got there on their own and anyone who is poor is poor because they're lazy. Most "self made" rich like my late uncle got there through a combination of hard work and extremely good luck -- hard work alone won't do it. I'm especially down on those born into wealth who think they deserve it. My uncle deserved it, Donald Trump did not -- his riches were handed to him on a silver platter.
Stupid is thinking tax breaks for the rich will help the economy; history shows otherwose. Stupid is believing that anyone can get rich. Stupid is thinking poor people are all lazy; most people on food stamps actually work.
Stupid is your "get a job" remark. Actually, worse than stupid.
Evil is letting people go hungry when they don't have to be hungry. There is enough food to feed everyone, the only thing keeping people hungry is greed.
Free Martian Whores!
Of COURSE you don't care how wealth is generated. That is standard for socialists. It is also why socialism is crumbling around the world, as is fascism in the US. The ONLY system that has EVER worked has been free market capitalism, which was in practice in every country that ever went through the Industrial Revolution. You can't have one without at least a fairly free market. And the US had the freest markets in the world history from the end of Reconstruction until 1913, and had the freest markets in the world until 1971. If you could be successful just my exploiting native populations, then Africa should be a superpower, as should Latin America.
Exploitation doesn't create prosperity. Freedom does.
So I'd rather preserve the right for all people to flee this country legally whenever the need should arise.
Having a right to do something is no right when you don't have the means to do so.
Keeping cash offshore can be a critical component of maintaining that freedom since offshore accounts can't be as easily siezed by the government during a crack-down
Again, that freedom comes from cash -- cash most don't have and never will have. And the only seizures I've read about are for illegal activity that usually has impoverished someone.
But freedom from oppression must be preserved first before taxing the rich man.
The two are not mutually exclusive; you can do both at the same time.
Demanding too much from the rich will be like ordering the rich man's armed bodyguard to hand you the rich man's wallet. Whose side is the bodyguard going to take, when he's the man with the gun?
The rich man and his armed bodyguard are no match for a hundred angry peasants with rocks and pitchforks. We greatly outnumber them. We underestimate our own power.
It is reasonable to ask the rich to pay a greater share of the common burden, but policies need to be pushed that increase the earning power of the middle class to grow again and offer a counter-balance to the extreme wealth and influence of the Walmart, Oracle, and Koch executives.
Agreed, but the millions the CEO gets while running the business into the ground with no accountability or penalty should end.
As for myself, I'm entertaining a job offer from Sweden, where there are slightly higher taxes but I would save millions in care for my autistic daughter, free college degree for my son, and have less worry of slipping further through the US social safety net.
I don't blame you for that; there's no reason except our own stupidity for Sweden's success not to be the case here. BTW, I have a mentally handicapped daughter myself (she's grown now).
Free Martian Whores!
Nobody should be paying any income taxes, but certainly the wealthy are paying a hugely disproportionate amount in income taxes, both as a percentage of their earnings and as an absolute dollar amount. 5% of top earners pay 59% of income taxes and 50% of bottom earners pay 3% of income taxes. This is a completely wrong system even before the argument that income taxes are wrong in the first place. Income tax assumes that your income belongs to the government, not to you, and the government allows you to keep a portion of it just to maximise its own revenue.
Obviously there is huge discrimination against the voting minority of the people, who are in the top earner bracket by the huge majority of the bottom earners, and it doesn't matter what the definition of 'rich' is, it is just somebody who is making more than you, that's all, because there is nothing that says: a person making 10 million per year is rich or a person making 1 million dollars a year is rich or a person making 150K per year is rich or a person making 70K per year is rich or a person making 45K per year is rich. This idea is arbitrary and the collectivist mind must keep it arbitrary so that it is easy to re-target the mob to whoever the current subset of the population is that is making more than you.
Your stance here shows exactly what the problem is:
Any "freedom" I can't have I have no trouble with the government keeping from your rich ass. ......
if I don't have that right, neither should you.
- that's it, that's the gist of it, that's the root of it, there is nothing else, only this. (of-course these rights are stolen from all individuals, not just from the very wealthy, the very wealthy trade on shadow markets regardless of such laws, the people who undoubtedly suffer from such laws are actually the people of more modest means)
If you personally cannot do something then it must not be something that anybody else can have a freedom to do even though they completely earned the ability, they must be prevented.
Here is how it can be extended:
"it doesn't matter what you make in earnings and how you achieved it, if I can't have a yacht, I have no problem with the gov't keeping it away from your rich ass"
"...if I can't have a nice car, I have no problem with the gov't keeping it away from your rich ass"
"...if I can't have a vacation, I have no problem with the gov't keeping it away from your rich ass"
"...if I can't have that certain food, I have no problem with the gov't keeping it away from your rich ass"
"...if I can't have good time with that beautiful super model, I have no problem with the gov't keeping it away from your rich ass"
"...if I can't have anything, I have no problem with the gov't keeping it away from your rich ass"
"...if I can't have more than 200K in earnings per year, I have no problem with the gov't keeping it away from your rich ass"
That's the problem, if the mob can prevent the wealthy from actually being able to use their wealth as they see fit, then there are no reasons to bother working. If Steve Jobs was limited to what he could make beyond a certain amount for example in the year 1985, when he was already a multi-millionaire, then he would stop working, go ahead and just enjoy the remaining years spending his wealth rather than re-investing it, rather than working, rather than creating all the products that he did, expanding the business as he did.
The wealthy enjoy only a tiny portion of their wealth actually, they spend on themselves a tiny amount. Jobs spent maybe 4% of his total earnings on himself over his life time, the rest was always invested and re-invested. It is those wealthy people who actually give the society much more than the society gives them and much more than the middle class and the poor do. The poor and the middle class only make enough to feed themselves, the wealthy generate businesses and products and services that feed millions of people, give
You can't handle the truth.
I see, so there were no Asians or blacks in Latin America.
AMAZING! You should write a book, fix history, and become a billionaire! Or would that exploit too many people for you?