FATCA: Why New Tax Haven Laws are a Disaster in the Making

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.

Poetree: An Environmentally-Friendly Way to be Remembered

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).

Junk Science? Questions about Expert Testimony in Michigan's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Trial

by Nomad

The testimony of the state's expert witness challenging Michigan's same-sex marriage took an amusing turn when he admitted that he believed gays would suffer eternal damnation in the depths of hell. But that's only half of the story. 
Read more to learn the rest.

Last week, the testimony in a federal court challenge on Michigan's same-sex ban took an unusual turn. In order to show a clear bias in what was supposed to be pure science- the plaintiff's attorney asked Professor Douglas Allen, a Canadian economist about his personal views on homosexuality.

The Monkey Trial Trick
As the state's expert, Professor Allen had warned the court that, after reviewing 60 same-sex parenting studies over a 15-year period, he recommended that the state uphold its ban. On the surface, the testimony seemed persuasive.

Then, Attorney Ken Mogill asked Allen:

“Is it accurate that you believe the consequence of engaging in homosexual acts is a separation from God and eternal damnation? .. in other words, they’re going to hell.”

“Without repentance, yes,” answered Allen.

This courtroom technique is straight out of the historic "Scopes Monkey Trial" of 1925 in which Tennessee attempted to ban the teaching of evolution in the state's public schools. Those bans came after lobbying from by World Christian Fundamentals Association whose president also happened to be a state representative. (In the same-sex marriage debate, it's a bit more camouflaged and involves a few politically-active Christian groups.)  The climax of the Scopes trial had one legendary attorney the great William Jennings Bryan, taking the stand and being quizzed about his religious views. The defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, in effect, publicly humiliated the state's attorney. 

(However, it should be recalled too that the Tennessee court found that the teaching of evolution could be banned and the Supreme Court upheld that decision. It was a victory for fundamentalists though it is usually portrayed as victory for progressives, a victory of science over superstition.

In any event, the same-sex marriage bans have not met with the same Supreme Court approval, In fact, the decision by the high court has been the key to overturning the discriminatory laws on a state-by-state basis.
Douglas' answer suggested that his pure science might not be quite as pure as he suggested. Naturally, the courtroom exchange made all the headlines but it was only half of the story. 

  

Putin's Power Play in Crimea Exposes a Long-Held Russian Hypocrisy

by Nomad

Russia's decision to annex Ukraine's Crimean region has sent a shudder throughout the international community. Vladimir Putin's decision was part and parcel of Russian policy, one that has been shaped by both its tsarist past as well as its Soviet years under Stalin. How does this controversial decision reveal an underlying hypocrisy of Russian policy?

Empire Rebuilding?

Monday saw Russian President Vladimir Putin annexing the Crimean peninsula for the Motherland, in the name of protecting the Russian ethnic minority in Ukraine. While the Russian-speaking minority forms about 17 percent of the Ukrainian population, they do make up the majority in Crimea. A majority of region but a minority of the nation.
This act, which the international community has soundly condemned as treaty-breaking and in breach of international laws of state sovereignty, has many of Russia's neighbors- with similar minorities- extremely worried. Their greatest fear can be summed up with two questions: Is Putin actually attempting to revive the Soviet Empire? If not, where will he draw the line?

As The Washington Post found Putin's speech  was riddled with false statements about the events. One interesting misleading statement:

“Crimeans say that in 1991, they were handed over like a sack of potatoes, and I can’t help but agree with it. And what about the Russian state? What about Russia? It humbly accepted the situation. This country was going through such hard times then that realistically it was incapable of protecting its interests.”

Putin's re-writing of history supplies the Kremlin with all the justification it needed for what some have called "a land grab." In fact, the 1991 decision to join Ukraine was a democratic one, with a vote of 54% in favor. Buried in the quote, Putin makes the suggestion that now Russia is prepared to use force to protect its interests.
Even if that means defying the West.

Confidence Trick: What Flim-Flamming Con Artists and Fox News Have in Common

by Nomad

Con artists target the elderly as "marks" for a number of reasons. While the motives differ slightly, Fox News targets the same demographic for exactly the same reasons.

According to Webster's Dictionary:

PROPAGANDA:

..." the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person; also - ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause"...

Over the years many critics of Fox News have called it a conservative propaganda machine, whose goal seems to be to divide the nation. But maybe that's missing the point.

The Fox News- Con Artist Connections

The average Fox News viewer, studies have found, is over 65 (and keep in mind that's the average). It's no coincidence that the number one target of confidence tricksters just also happens to be the elderly. Instead making off with their life savings, the Fox News con artists have been used to foment division and affect elections through near constant disinformation. (Indirectly, savings are being drained from senior bank accounts in support for groups like the Tea Party.)

Nothing is accidental when it comes to Roger Ailes, president of Fox News. A wit could say Ailes put the "con" in conservative politics. As a diligent flim-flammer, he has chosen his victims well and has learned how to exploit characteristics of the human psyche such as prejudice, loneliness, naivety, and ignorance.

The Importance of Impeachment: How the Tea Party is Abusing Constitutional Procedure

by Nomad

Since the first presidential impeachment in 1868,  the procedure has proved to be a terribly imperfect tool. However, even when not applied, its existence is essential for the Republic. 

David Stewart's book, Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln's Legacy is a fascinating study of a constitutional crisis. The book is set against the period immediately after the war of rebellion when the nation was attempting somehow to put the country back together. Just to show you how easily things can go terribly wrong, Lincoln's best intentions turned out to be a colossal misjudgment.

Not many historians have pointed out that Lincoln was, in fact, neither Republican nor Democrat in this second term. He was the candidate for the National Unity Party and he chose as his vice-president, Andrew Johnson, was a Southern Democrat. (Imagine that? A single ticket made of both parties?) 

Had Lincoln not been murdered, the constitutional crisis of presidential impeachment would have been avoided. However, the new president's suspected loyalty to the defeated South, his position that states had the right to their sovereignty- even after what most saw as outright sedition- were too much for some in Congress to bear. When faced with an unyielding Republican minority (every bit as querulous and uncompromising as today's Tea Party) determined to unseat the president by hook or crook, the 17th President's arrogance and stubbornness made impeachment unavoidable. 

It's a good read. And the story of how and why the Radical Republicans attempted to use the process of impeachment to remove President Johnson gives a lot of insight into the ways elected representative under partisan stress can lose track of their primary mission.

Huckabee: Connecting End-of-Life Issues with Abortion Reveals Republican Weakness

by Nomad

Mike Huckabee in an attempt to garner attention, has managed to connect the abortion debate and end-of-life matters. Although Huckabee appears unaware of it, that connection actually highlights the problem with the Republican stand on abortion. On top of that, both subjects are toxic to winning the 2016 election.

The other day, while making a speech at the Susan B. Anthony List, a 501 (c)4 anti-abortion organization, former governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee attempted to play the "Scare the oldies" card. (It's been Fox News' bread and butter since its inception.)

As reported by Politico,

The former Arkansas governor and one-time presidential candidate said women typically cite hardship or inconvenience as their reason for getting an abortion — the same reasons that he said could be used to justify ending the lives of the elderly.

The same technique of scaring the senior voters was used by Sarah Palin in her death panel nonsense. Huckabee told the audience:

“If we teach the generation coming after us that it’s okay to terminate a human life because it represents a financial hardship or social disruption, what are we telling them?”

Huckabee is the kind of politician that doesn't fear to tread the paths where other GOP angels tend to slither away from.    

In this speech, Huckabee chided his compatriots for shying away from the subject of abortion which he sees as a sure-fire election-winning issue. (Somebody should have told him that according to a 2013 poll, seven in ten Americans oppose overturning Roe v. Wade)

Huckabee ironically is attempting to connect a pair of unpopular positions and is expecting some kind of political gain.