Nomadic Politics

by Robert Morris

Here's a guest post with some further insight on a controversial piece of legislation called FATCA. Robert Morris explains why this law on tax havens is a really really bad idea.

First off, I would like to thank Nomad Politics for bringing up this issue, and also for reaching out to seek an opposing viewpoint to its FATCA coverage. This is the kind of open-mindedness that we could all use more of.

In that spirit, let's start by laying out a positive aspect of FATCA, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.

Some Facts about FATCA

This US law was largely introduced in response to a Swiss banking scandal. A significant number of Swiss banks were revealed to have been colluding with US citizens to hide their earnings from the US government. FATCA has, in fact, severely disrupted the Swiss banking industry. Switzerland’s “too big too fail” banks, like UBS, have settled with the US government for sums that are eye-watering, but will not severely disrupt their business. Medium-size and smaller Swiss banks are being forced to pay proportionally much larger sums, whether or not they knew their clients were from the US. Many are going out of business. The small Swiss banks that survive this reckoning will certainly think twice before they ever deal with US clients again.

Judging from the fact that my anti-FATCA video has been viewed by about a 50th of the entire population of the Cayman Islands, the legislation has been having the desired effect in other tax haven jurisdictions as well. We should admit that in this one respect, FATCA has been having the desired consequence. Tax avoidance by Americans has become more difficult, and that is a good thing.

This one positive result, however should not distract the public from FATCA’s truly mind-boggling scope. FATCA is a sledgehammer that is being used where a toothpick was necessary. FATCA does not just go after Switzerland and Cayman. It fundamentally re-orders the business of banking for every country, and in every country.

by Nomad

John Kennedy once said,

"Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal."

With thoughts of mortality come thoughts about how we would like to be remembered after we are gone. The costs of funerals are astounding and, for some people, the whole idea of burial in cement vaults and steel coffin is offensive and absurd.

More and more cemeteries require tombstones to be flush to the ground to expedite the maintenance. Those beautiful sculptural monstrosities that the Victorians loved are long gone. Now all that's left to remember you is a flat square tile in the ground. That's it.

But all of us want to be remembered- at least to some extent- after we're gone.

I recently saw one product that neatly addresses this while touching upon each of the points Kennedy mentioned. It's called "Poetree" and it's a simple but wonderful idea.

Ashes of the deceased are placed in a biodegradable urn. The urn doubles as a planter for a tree. (The picture shows boxwood but I can't see why there couldn't be a selection. Personally I'd prefer a willow or maybe an olive tree.)
At the base of the tree, there is a ceramic ring with the name and dates of the "loved one" and again, I suppose it could be further personalized as well. For urban dwellers, the boxwood tree could be decorative, I guess, but knowing my friends, it would end up being a handy ashtray or trash can.

Eventually, the tree could be moved to some open location and planted into the ground and, as time passes, form forests.

The minimalist concept comes from the mind of French designer Margaux Ruyan from DSK ISD International School of Design (India).