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."

48 of 260 comments (clear)

  1. Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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!

    1. Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, US law is being applied to a non-US company because they offered services to US residents.

      In a sane setup, the US regulators would go and prosecute US residents who used illegal services, not foreign companies with foreign owners who are not in US jurisdiction. However, prosecuting lots of ordinary Americans is not politically attractive to these sorts of regulatory bodies, so they try and impose US law on foreigners instead. Now maybe these InTrade employees will have to avoid ever flying near the USA again in case their plane is forced to land and they're arrested.

    2. Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. by Synerg1y · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The key word is right in the summary "pressure". Think of how MS packages windows for euro use, yep the door swings both ways. They didn't have to ban U.S. customers, but rather than dealing with the U.S. , they chose to do so, just like google, MS, and a plethora of other companies have in the past. This is hardly news.

    3. Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The US doesn't ban gambling, they protect the government's monopoly of it.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. by SydShamino · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Err, with rare exceptions, most national laws apply to people (citizens, residents, and visitors) within the national borders, but don't apply to people currently residing or visiting a different country. As a quick example, it's illegal for U.S. citizens, residents, and visitors to possess marijuana while in the U.S., but it's not against U.S. law for them to possess marijuana while in the Netherlands (unless Netherlands law makes it illegal).

      So in this case, blocking by U.S. IP address effectively stops people in the U.S. from doing something illegal for people in the U.S. to do, while not preventing those in other countries (including U.S. citizens in other countries) from doing that same thing if it's legal where they currently are.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    5. Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      The middle east bans Muhammad satire and the US bans gambling and other vices. Somehow it all goes back to intrusive, authoritarian governments.

      FTFY

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    6. Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Since it's The Washington Post, they buried the lead at the very very end of TFA.

      Monday's complaint includes charges that TEN violated that earlier settlement. The company used Intrade to offer illegal options including on the future prices of gold, changes in the unemployment rate and a measure of U.S. economic output, the complaint said. It said TEN failed to provide the pop-up notices mandated in the 2005 order.

      Intertrade had already been charged with the exact same offense, had agreed to stop doing so, but didn't.
      Somehow this is an issue with intrusive, authoritarian governments?

      /And I don't think anyone is arguing that commodities futures should not be regulated, because they would be wrong.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    7. Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. by s73v3r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why the fuck would you "call that out", though? That's an absolutely stupid point to make. Of course US law is going to apply to people inside the US. Just like German law would apply to me if I went and visited Germany.

    8. Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. by SydShamino · · Score: 2

      Yes, as is true for most all U.S. laws. Were you to visit the U.S., you would not be able to do things that are currently legal in your home country, unless they are also legal in the United States. Were you to do one of those things (smoke pot in the U.S. as a Dutch citizen, to continue my previous example), you could be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for doing so.

      Again, I'm not making any claims as to whether this should be illegal or not.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    9. Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. by SydShamino · · Score: 2

      Indeed, like taxes, though as you can deduct foreign taxes paid, you might not owe anything to the U.S. government. Providing support to terrorists or engaging in child trafficking also pop to mind as things illegal for U.S. citizens to do whether they are in the U.S. or not at the time. I'm sure there are numerous other exceptions, but they are dwarfed by the large numbers of federal, state, and local laws that only apply to people currently within the jurisdiction (citizen, resident or visitor) and don't apply to those outside the jurisdiction.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    10. Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. by dcollins · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Err, with rare exceptions, most national laws apply to people (citizens, residents, and visitors) within the national borders, but don't apply to people currently residing or visiting a different country. As a quick example, it's illegal for U.S. citizens, residents, and visitors to possess marijuana while in the U.S., but it's not against U.S. law for them to possess marijuana while in the Netherlands..."

      But the U.S. House of Representatives did pass a bill last year to reverse exactly that.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/06/us-drug-policy-war-congress_n_998993.html
      http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr313

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    11. Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. by BlueStrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Intertrade had already been charged with the exact same offense, had agreed to stop doing so, but didn't.
      Somehow this is an issue with intrusive, authoritarian governments?

      Yes, if the US government is attempting to extend it's legal jurisdiction to control what a sovereign foreign national or foreign business does in their own nation. Does Iran get to extradite and prosecute Hollywood film companies and/or their execs for depicting women not covered by hijabs and/or burqas?

      /And I don't think anyone is arguing that commodities futures should not be regulated, because they would be wrong.

      If by "regulation" you mean laws and regulations to prevent fraud/cheating/stealing and to enforce legal contracts and negate illegal or unconscionable contracts, then I agree.

      If you mean the type of intrusive and byzantine laws and regulations that exist now that attempt to "shape" and "steer" the market according to some politician's or bureaucrat's fantasies, then I AM arguing against regulation, regardless of your opinions either way.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    12. Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. by nasch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah it can be really inconvenient to go after the people actually breaking the law. Let's just go after the convenient targets instead, because law enforcement is hard!

    13. Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. by theArtificial · · Score: 2

      I think he lost the login details to his other account, ProfoundCaptObvious. I'd be upset if I lost that, when there are so many points to make, too.

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    14. Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. by Tokolosh · · Score: 2

      "...national laws ... don't apply to people currently residing or visiting a different country.

      If you are a US citizen, permanently domiciled in another country, you are still subject to US taxes. The USA is the only country to do this.

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    15. Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. by Burning1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is not true in all cases anymore. The US recently passed laws banning 'sex tourism' which is the act of hiring certain classes of prostitutes while traveling abroad, even when engaging in those acts is legal in other states. The purpose of the law is to prevent US citizens from engaging in sexual acts with young children in foreign countries, even when such acts are legal in the country where the act occurred.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_tourism#Child_sex_tourism
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003

    16. Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      The US doesn't ban gambling, they protect the government's monopoly of it.

      Well, technically, they ban US citizens from participating in gambling occurring outside the US. It's OK to bet at the horse track and the indian casinos, even OK to do it online IIRC. Just not OK to gamble with a non-US-based entity.

      And the US has already been (repeatedly, IIRC?) sanctioned by the WTO for doing so.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  2. Hmmm ... by gstoddart · · Score: 2

    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.
    1. Re:Hmmm ... by LaminatorX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Feds' problem is that it's effectively a futures/options market in many respects, and such instruments are to be traded on regulated exchanges. Intrade is not so regulated, thus they are being excluded from the US market.

    2. Re:Hmmm ... by alexander_686 · · Score: 4, Informative

      To put a finer point on this, Standardized derivative contracts that trade on an exchange are heavily regulated. Option and future markets tend to be abused by inside traders, fast talking high pressure brokers, etc.

      Most derivative contracts (by notional amount), however, trade OTC and are lightly regulated. Think SWAPs, CDOs, etc. However, the traders are large companies which are heavily regulated and are (supposed) to have sophisticated risk and capital controls.

    3. Re:Hmmm ... by HiThere · · Score: 2

      Because they're bigger than I am, and could beat me up if they wanted to.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:Hmmm ... by s73v3r · · Score: 2

      It's not that it's illegal. There are regulations governing the trading of futures, which is what these are marketed as. The site is likely not following those regulations.

    5. Re:Hmmm ... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2

      It's sort of like the Prisoner's Dilemma writ large. It's throwing your vote away to vote 3rd party unless 50 million other people do it too.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    6. Re:Hmmm ... by dcollins · · Score: 2

      It's "throwing your vote away" because of rudimentary game theory, as summarized in Duverger's Law.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    7. Re:Hmmm ... by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      It's not that it's illegal. There are regulations governing the trading of futures, which is what these are marketed as. The site is likely not following those regulations.

      But, is this really 'trading futures'? My understanding is that real futures trading is defined thusly:

      A financial contract obligating the buyer to purchase an asset (or the seller to sell an asset), such as a physical commodity or a financial instrument, at a predetermined future date and price. Futures contracts detail the quality and quantity of the underlying asset; they are standardized to facilitate trading on a futures exchange.

      There's no promise of any future transactions here. It's someone placing a bet on a prediction, which if you're right pays off. It's not saying "Next March 31st I will sell you x units of y at price z" ... it's saying "I bet the stock market is trending down on March 31st".

      So, unless there is a fear that people placing these bets could have some sway over the outcome (which is insider trading and already covered by regulations) ... then this doesn't seem like it fits the definition of trading futures.

      But "I predict this team wins" or "I predict this person gets elected" seem like they're very far outside of regulating futures trades.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    8. Re:Hmmm ... by tmosley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And that is why America is doomed. It's race to the bottom, and we're all "winning".

    9. Re:Hmmm ... by alexander_686 · · Score: 2

      Ah, law and semantics. IANAL but I would be willing to bet that while
                  InterTrade falls under Irish laws
                  is regulated under Irish sport books laws
                is not overseen by the Irish financial authorities as a “regulated exchange” (stocks, options, futures, etc.).

      London’s market is overseen by GB’s financial regulators – so that is o.k.

      We can debate the moral difference between sport gambling and option trading – I think there is a difference. However, as it stands now, there are huge technical differences between the two, hence this is coming from the CFTC and not Justice’s vice division.

    10. Re:Hmmm ... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2

      Wait, you're saying the problem is it's too easy to register a political party and it needs to be more expensive?! I don't get that logic.

      Regardless, it's a math thing. The simple winner-take-all plurality type voting system pretty much guarantees you'll end up with a two-party system. If we had a different voting system, proportional, runoffs, ranking, etc, then a third party could actually thrive. But of course the hurdles facing this kind of reform guarantee that it will never happen.

      1. You can't explain why an alternate voting system is better in a 7-second sound bite.
      2. It would probably require a Constitutional amendment in order to implement.
      3. The Republicrats have absolutely no incentive to do anything that would undermine their perpetual duopoly.

      As it is, a third party candidate pretty much guarantees the election of the candidate from the Big Two who is least like him because he will merely siphon votes from the candidate who is most like him, because those are the people most likely to see the third party candidate as a good choice.

      So voting third-party _is_ throwing away your vote from a game theory point of view. Sure, you can make a political statement, and I think that's a very American thing to do, but given that there is always at least one candidate in most people's opinion whose election would be a Very Bad Thing, there is almost always a strong incentive to vote against someone rather than for someone.

      If you think the Big Two are equally bad, then a third party vote makes the most sense, but I don't think very many people think the Big Two are equally bad. I, for one, think they are both bad, but one is much worse, and I suspect most people see things the same way.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  3. How far is too far? by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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"
    1. Re:How far is too far? by timmyf2371 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      InTrade is an Irish company, founded by an Irishman, with a HQ in Dublin. They also banned the use of US credit and debit cards in 2010 - so cannot be actively seen to be soliciting business from the US.

      Considering these facts, I'm not entirely comfortable with an unrelated country being able to have such an impact on a foreign company, which only operates overseas.

      --

      Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
    2. Re:How far is too far? by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Considering these facts,

      Next time try reading to the end of TFA, where they mention that the Irish company, founded by an Irishman, with a HQ in Dublin, had settled the exact same charges (with the CFTC) in 2005.

      Awkward.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  4. Another stupid summary by oldhack · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Another stupid summary by dcollins · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "So you think the US can stop you from purchasing wine while in Italy on vacation?... No, but that's an absolutely fucking retarded comparison. 1). Purchasing wine is not illegal in the US or Italy. 2). The transaction occurs on Italian soil, therefore the participants are subject to Italian law."

      So do you think this bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last year (HR 313: criminalize any drug activity by U.S. citizens overseas, even if legal in the foreign country) is valid or not?

      http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr313

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  5. Re:USA citizens used to be first class by Sique · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  6. Good riddance! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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".

    1. Re:Good riddance! by s73v3r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm perfectly fine with the taxes being paid on only the profit. I'm just wondering why the hell simply having money to invest is rewarded more than actually doing work. Capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income, if not higher. There is no reason whatsoever that we should be rewarding people for simply having money.

  7. "Dublin-Based" InTrade by MikeRT · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

  8. Re:That's excessive. by z_gringo · · Score: 2

    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.
  9. Try getting a brokerage account in the UK from USA by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!
  10. Re:USA citizens used to be first class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  11. Damn, this sucks by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  12. Re:USA citizens used to be first class by SaroDarksbane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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 . . .

  13. Bitcoin sidesteps another US regulation by Teppy · · Score: 2

    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.)

  14. InTrade predictions: less "gambling" than stocks by blind+biker · · Score: 2

    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.
  15. Re: say what? by almechist · · Score: 2

    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.

  16. Reach of the "law"? Bullshit. by J'raxis · · Score: 2

    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.

  17. Re:USA citizens used to be first class by mcgrew · · Score: 2

    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.

  18. Re:USA citizens used to be first class by Sentrion · · Score: 2

    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.