Are Taxes Causing the Rich to Renounce Their Citizenship?

Are you saying that those freepers renounced their citizenship?

“If the country is screwing the rich they have no obligation to stay there and continue to be screwed. The biggest problem is finding an alternative country that will rob them less.”

There are quite a few. America has had a growing reputation for unfriendliness to corporations and to the wealthy, culminating in the present situation with this White House resident, so places like Canada are now ranked better for corporations. America’s not even number 2.

I forgot about Former President Reagan, for a moment. I wish Former President Reagan was alive today and could share his wisdom with Americans. Too bad, Congress and the Tipster wouldn’t listen. This mess could have been avoided for our nation.

Canada are now ranked better for corporations

WOW!! You know it's bad when CANADA's tax rate is lower.

I think it’s all those Hollyweird types who said they were gonna renounce their citizenship because Bush got elected or a ban on gay marriage passed or some conservative cause triumphed in the polls.

Or maybe not.

“WOW!! You know it’s bad when CANADA’s tax rate is lower.”

Haha... indeed. That’s why I chose that example; there are others.

That’s already happening the IRS is charging you something like 25% of your wealth to leave.

How you like to share a foxhole with somebody who puts money before country?

It is more complicated than that and the process is currently at about a 60 month wait to officially not be a US Citizen and it does cost some serious money.

The moral of the story is that if you want to leave to avoid paying taxes, don’t speak or write a word about that motive, don’t research relative tax advantages on the net, don’t ask your accountant. Establish other motives well in advance. Buy property, vacation there, show you started to love the place, especially if gets good weather. Start a business there so you logically need to be closer to manage it. Maybe even get a girlfriend or wife in the other country.

Even if you do all of that the IRS still will come after you, but you have a much better chance of prevailing in court.

I know of two who have expatriated permanently. Whether they are planning on becoming citizens of the nations to which they have moved, I do not know.

As far as that goes, I'm in the (two-year) process of moving permanently to Panama. Citizenship will depend on what kind of residency permit I can earn. If I can earn Panamanian citizenship, I shall, and give up US citizenship. The whole process takes about 6-7 years.

BTW, re taxes. If one expatriates but retains US citizenship, one is still required to file income taxes annually. In some cases, up to roughly $92,000 of income can be tax-exempt for US purposes, so it pays handsomely to set up one's affairs so that one does qualify for this exemption. Panama does not tax income earned outside Panama. One must also file a couple of forms annually with the US Treasury Dep't.

And we derided the USSR for having an Iron Curtain.

How would you like to share a country with a bunch of sheep who don’t care that the government is confiscating an ever-increasing share of their wealth?

I guess that there have always been a few people born here that would renounce their citizenship, they existed before I was even born.

How you like to share a foxhole with somebody who puts money before country?

I resonate with your argument. But here is my counterpoint-- "Is it really your country anymore?"

America, as we knew it, was founded by people who left tyranny, persecution, and/ or poverty in order to be free and prosperous. But if the U.S. government now oppresses, persecutes, and impoverishes us-- what then? Obama's transformed "Amerika" will not be the country that I was/ am willing to die to defend.

I am ashamed to admit that I have been having thoughts about becoming an ex-patriate-- even though I served this nation as an Army officer. But where would one go?

If Obama is given a second term and his socialist fellow travelers regain control of Congress-- we will be finished. I think that then we will be facing a revolution and/or civil war within a decade.

Andorra??

I suggested the wealthy would leave the country if they were taxed more than they already are months ago. Just like manufacturing did with regulations and high taxes, taking the jobs along with them. Perhaps they will buy a villa in the hills of Italy and rest on their laurels. Who could blame them?

Carter, Bush 41 and 43, Clinton and Obama have systematically turned the most productive, free and weallthy country in history into a third world nation! We had our last breath of fresh air with Ronald Reagan.

LEARN YOUR RIGHTS!!!!!

Income taxes are voluntary according to this Reid interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7mRSI8yWwg

Dario Busch: Harrell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r37Fm7paVjs&feature=related

commissioner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSW_M5_jPkA&feature=related

Female commissioner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pu0iSxAKxT0&feature=related

Whitey Harrell case:
The state of Illinois vs Whitey Harrell
http://www.aardvarkbusiness.net/chat/viewtopic.php?t=12502
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS vs. GAYLON L. HARRELL,

In deliberation, the jury asked the judge for a copy of the law Harrell was being tried for breaking, but the judge would not supply it. When they found that certain evidence admitted into the record during the trial by the defense was missing, they requested it of the judge and were again denied. They acquitted Harrell on all counts. Even though the parties were in state court and the official charge was “failure to file” state income tax returns, the case was really about the legal requirement to file a federal income tax return because, like most states, Illinois’ law mandates the filing of a state income tax return if the Illinois resident is required to file a federal income tax return. Harrell’s case is cited as PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS vs. GAYLON L. HARRELL, Case Number 97CF89 in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois.

http://www.netscientia.com/Truth_IRS.html

http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm

several chapters at this site
http://usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_history/Chap4.html

This is from a blog, but it does give simplified explanation of our law...

Here i will stick up for Johnny:
First!
Johnny says “American Citizenship in a republican form of government has been effectively altered over many generations to US Citizenship in a democratic form of government centralized in Washington DC instead of a guaranteed “republican form of government” in the states where it was originally intended.”. ok now sing along with me folks.. I pledge allegiance to the flag... of the united states of America and to the (?)the word is republic.. for which it stands. NOT DEMOCRATIC.
Posted by: Argon | 02/15/2008 at 09:29 AM
second:

if you were born in the federal USA (Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, or Swain’s Island) then you are a US citizen. if you were born anywhere else you would be a Sovereign Citizen.
look the definitions up in a dictionary if you have to.
you learned this stuff in middle school here folks.. how have you all forgotten this.
Congress may pass any law it wants to, in its federal jurisdiction.(Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, or Swain’s Island). but congress may pass no law onto any state if it conflicts with the constitution. (remember this stuff in school). So if the constitution says you can do anything you want, so long as it does not hurt another. (long and short of it) how is buckle your seat belt a law? i wouldn’t hurt anybody if i didn’t wear my seatbelt? so how in the world could this possibly be a law? (ps its not really a law, its a statue) obviously it is in conflict with the constitution, so how can they uphold this statue as law in court?
it all has to do with the money you use today. (this post is going to get ugly here)
ok the constitution demands we use a currency that is backed by gold and silver as currency. if your not familiar with this, we do not use gold and silver. our government gave the right to print and monitor our money to a private bank. yes the federal reserve isn’t ours, our money isnt backed by gold or silver anymore. if your not familiar with this history look it up its not a secret.
so if the constitution demands gold and silver but you are using federal reserve notes that are not real, then the constitution does not recognize it.
i looked up these definitions for you:
Lawful:
(1)allowed or permitted by law; (2)not contrary to law:
legal:
(1)permitted by law; (2)of or pertaining to law; connected with the law or its administration.
so you see the constitution demands lawful currency, but the federal reserve note is legal tender, gold and silver are allowed by law, fed notes are connected with the law by its administration.

Posted by: Argon | 02/15/2008 at 10:09 AM

Here I have listed the direct definition of the Federal Reserve from the dictionary:
The Federal Reserve System (also the Federal Reserve; informally The Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. Created in 1913 by the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, it is a quasi-public, private banking system.
Also note the word “quasi”… here is that definition:
Quasi: Seeming or seemingly but not necessarily genuine or genuinely.
The Constitution of the US, states that all currency will be backed by real money. (gold/silver)
However it is not. It is backed by a fiat currency owned by a foreign entity. (The FED) Why is it foreign? Because the Constitution says so. (The Supreme Law of the Land).
Posted by: Argon | 02/15/2008 at 10:14 AM

it is foreign... hmmmm so back to the seat belt thing again, so maybe when i go to court before i even let the prosecutor even speak to me, i should request his or her “Foreign Agent registration statement” which is required by law to be on file with the secretary of state.
Now why in the world would a prosecutor of a court system have a foreign agent registration on file? Because they are operating out of a foreign court system, that why, its foreign. now why anyone would want to be tried in a foreign court system, better yet is how did this happen?
You accepted the benefit of using there fed notes, its gotta get paid back somehow. you see gold and silver can not be taxed its a substance. but fake money can be taxed, why.. the constitution does not see fed notes as real. so they can tax it all they want. please people do some research and forget about paris hilton for a few days.
let me just hit the Social security issue for a second. think about this.. i started working 25 years ago, the fake dollar (i didn’t know it then)was worth about 48cents that i paid into SS. Today if i retired, that same dollar today is worth only 4 cents. did i gain money or loose money at that point? you do the math
Posted by: Argon | 02/15/2008 at 10:34 AM

The Federal Reserve, the IRS and a very dangerous court of law.
The Constitution of the United States mentions three (3) areas of jurisdiction in which the courts may operate:

(1) Equity Law
The first court we will talk about is the court of equity. A court of equity is a place to settle disputes, such as:
I hire a construction company to build my new home (there will be a contract between yourself and the construction company). After the home was completed, the roof leaked water into the living room every time it rained. If the construction company didn’t fix the problem, you would then take them to equity court for this dispute.
Equity Law is law which compels performance. It compels you to perform to the exact letter of any contract that you are under. So, if you have compelled performance, there must be a contract somewhere, and you are being compelled to perform under the obligation of the contract. Now this can only be a civil action—not criminal. In Equity Jurisdiction, you cannot be tried criminally, but you can be compelled to perform to the letter of a contract. If you then refuse to perform as directed by the court, you can then be charged with contempt of court, which is a criminal action.

(2) Common Law (Constitution Law)
If you have not read the Constitution, shame on you.
Common Law is based on God’s Law. Did you know the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land? Well it is! The Constitution says “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” Basically the concept of, if there is no victim there is no crime. Anytime someone is charged under the Common Law, there must be a damaged party. This only makes sense. If I throw a rock at neighbors window, and it caused damaged, that would be an example of there was a victim (the neighbors property) so there was a crime. This could be accidental or intentional; there is still a victim, thus a crime.
Common sense question: When you cross over the state line in most states, you will see a sign which says, “BUCKLE YOUR SEAT BELTS—IT’S THE LAW.” Which law is this? This cannot be Common Law(2), because who would you injure if you did not buckle up? Common law does not compel performance, so that’s not it. Equity (1) court compels performance, but you can not be tried criminally, so that’s not it either. The only court left is:

(3) Admiralty/Maritime Law
This is a civil jurisdiction of Compelled Performance which also has Criminal Penalties for not adhering to the letter of the contract. Now we can see what jurisdiction the seatbelt laws (and all traffic laws, building codes, ordinances, tax codes, etc.) are under. Whenever there is a penalty for failure to perform (such as willful failure to file), that is Admiralty/ Maritime Law and there must be a valid international contract in force. However, the courts don’t want to admit that they are operating under Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction, so they took the international law or Law Merchant and adopted it into our codes.
Posted by: Argon | 02/15/2008 at 10:37 AM

COURTS OF CONTRACT:
You may ask how we got into this situation where we can be charged with failure to wear seatbelts and be fined for it. Isn’t the judge sworn to uphold the Constitution? Yes, he is. But you must understand that the Constitution, in Article I, Section 10, gives us the unlimited right to contract, as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty or property of someone else. Contracts are enforceable, your drivers license is a contract and the Constitution gives two jurisdictions where contracts can be enforced—Equity or Admiralty. But we find them being enforced in Statutory Jurisdiction (there is no such thing, listed anywhere in the Constitution that says we can be tried in statutory law). This is the embarrassing part for the courts. We will cover this in more detail later.
Posted by: Argon | 02/15/2008 at 10:39 AM

CONTRACTS MUST BE VOLUNTARY
Under the Common Law, every contract must be entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally by both parties or it is void and unenforceable. These are characteristics of a Common Law contract. There is another characteristic—it must be based on substance. For example, contracts used to read, “For one dollar and other valuable considerations, I will paint your house, etc.” That was a valid contract—the dollar was a genuine, silver dollar. Now, suppose you wrote a contract that said, -For one Federal Reserve Note and other considerations, I will paint your house....’ And suppose, for example, I painted your house the wrong color. Could you go into a Common Law court and get justice? No, you could not. You see, a Federal Reserve Note is a “colorable” dollar, as it has no substance, and in a Common Law jurisdiction, that contract would be unenforceable.
The frustration many Americans feel about our judicial system can be overwhelming and often frightening; and, like most fear, it is based on lack of understanding or knowledge. Those of us who have chosen a path out of bondage and into liberty are faced, eventually, with the seemingly tyrannical power of some governmental agency and the mystifying and awesome power of the courts. We have been taught that we must “get a good lawyer,” but that is becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible. If we are defending ourselves from the government, we find that the lawyers quickly take our money and then tell us as the ship is sinking, “I can’t help you with that—I’m an officer of the court.” Ultimately, the only way for us to have even a ‘snowball’s chance’ is to understand the RULES OF THE GAME, and to come to an understanding of the true nature of the Law.
Posted by: Argon | 02/15/2008 at 10:39 AM

The lawyers have established and secured a virtual monopoly over this area of human knowledge by implying that the subject is just too difficult for the average person to understand, and by creating a separate vocabulary out of English words of otherwise common usage. While it may, at times, seem hopelessly complicated, it is not that difficult to grasp—are lawyers really as smart as they would have us believe? Besides, anyone who has been through a legal battle against the government with the aid of a lawyer has come to realize that lawyers learn about procedure, not about law.
Consider also that the framers of the Constitution wrote in language simple enough that the people could understand, specifically so that it would not have to be interpreted. So again we find, as in many other areas of life, that -THE BUCK STOPS HERE!’ It is we who must take the responsibility for finding and putting to good use the TRUTH. It is we who must claim and defend our God-given rights and our freedom from those who would take them from us. It is we who must protect ourselves, our families and our posterity from the inevitable intrusion into our lives by-those who live parasitically off the labor, skill and talents of others.
Posted by: Argon | 02/15/2008 at 10:41 AM

ADMIRALTY COURTS
The reason they cannot call it Admiralty Jurisdiction is that your defense would be quite different in Admiralty Jurisdiction from your defense under the Common Law. In Admiralty, there is no court which has jurisdiction unless there is a valid international contract in dispute. If you know it is Admiralty Jurisdiction, and they have admitted on the record that you are in an Admiralty Court, you can demand that the international maritime contract, to which you are supposedly a party, and which you supposedly have breached, be placed into evidence. No court has Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction unless there is a valid international maritime contract that has been breached. So you say, just innocently like a lamb, “Well, I never knew that I got involved with an international maritime contract, so I deny that such a contract exists. If this court is taking jurisdiction in Admiralty, then place the contract in evidence, so that I may challenge the validity of the contract. What they would have to do is place the national debt into evidence. They would have to admit that the international bankers own the whole nation, and that we are their slaves. This they can not admit this openly in court! Remember the monies used today are “colorable”, the word “colorable” means something that appears to be genuine, but is not.

Maybe it looks like a dollar, and maybe it spends like a dollar, but if it is not redeemable for lawful money (silver or gold) it is colorable.’ If a Federal Reserve Note is used in a contract, then the contract becomes a “colorable” contract. And “colorable” contracts must be enforced under a “colorable” jurisdiction. So by creating Federal Reserve Notes, the government had to create a jurisdiction to cover the kinds of contracts which use them. We now have what is called Statutory Jurisdiction, which is not a genuine Admiralty jurisdiction. It is “colorable” Admiralty Jurisdiction the judges are enforcing because we are using “colorable money.” Colorable Admiralty is now known as Statutory Jurisdiction. Let’s understand how we get sucked into this Statutory Jurisdiction.
Posted by: Argon | 02/15/2008 at 10:41 AM

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
The government set up a “colorable” law system to fit the “colorable” currency. It used to be called the Law Merchant or the Law of Redeemable Instruments, because it dealt with paper which was redeemable in something of substance. But, once Federal Reserve Notes had become unredeemable, there had to be a system of law which was completely “colorable” from start to finish. This system of law was codified as the Uniform Commercial Code, and has been adopted in every state. This is “colorable” law, and it is used in all the courts. I explained in one of the keys earlier, which is that the country is bankrupt and we have no rights. If the master says “Jump!” then the slave had better jump, because the master has the right to cut his head off. As slaves we have no rights. But the creditors/masters had to cover that up, so they created a system of law called the Uniform Commercial Code. This -colorable’ jurisdiction under the Uniform Commercial Code is the next key to understanding what has happened.

CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT
One difference between Common Law and the Uniform Commercial Code is that in Common Law, contracts must be entered into: (1) knowingly, (2) voluntarily, and (3) intentionally. Under the U.C.C., this is not so. First of all, con-tracts are un-necessary. Under this new law, -agreements’ can be binding, and if you only exercise the benefits of a -agreement,’ it is presumed or implied that you intend to meet the obligations associated with those benefits. If you accept a benefit offered by government, then you are obligated to follow, to the letter, each and every statute involved with that benefit. The method has been to get everybody exercising a benefit, and they don’t even have to tell the people what the benefit is. Some people think it is the driver’s license, the marriage license or the birth certificate, etc. I really believe it is none of these.
Posted by: Argon | 02/15/2008 at 10:41 AM

COMPELLED BENEFIT
I believe the benefit being used is that we have been given the privilege of discharging debt with limited liability, instead of paying debt. When we pay a debt, we give substance for substance. If I buy a piece of candy with a silver dollar, that dollar bought the candy, and the candy bought the dollar—substance for substance. But if I use a Federal Reserve Note to buy the candy, I have not paid for it. There is no substance in the Federal Reserve Note. It is worthless paper given in exchange for something of substantive value. Congress offers us this benefit: Debt money, created by the federal United States, can be spent all over the continental united States, it will be legal tender for all debts, public and private, and the limited liability is that you cannot be sued for not paying your debts. So now they have said, “We’re going to help you out, and you can just discharge your debts instead of paying your debts.” When we use this -colorable’ money to discharge our debts, we cannot use a Common Law court. We can only use a “colorable” court. We are completely under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Commercial Code—we are using non-redeemable negotiable instruments and we are discharging debt rather than paying debt.
Posted by: Argon | 02/15/2008 at 10:43 AM
maybe some more maybe not.. do some homework
Posted by: Argon | 02/15/2008 at 10:52 AM

oh just some more definitions:
Corpus Juris Secundom: the moment you hire an attorney you admit and give yourself as a ward of the court.
Ward of the court: an infant, or a person of unsound mind who is in-capable of handling his own legal affairs.
driving: is a regulated occupation for hire.
Posted by: argon | 02/15/2008 at 11:16 AM

http://remblogs.typepad.com/sovcit/2004/09/become_a_sovere.html

And then there is this article. It has every link to every statue necessary.

http://www.sedm.org/Forms/Tax/Withholding/W-8BEN/AboutIRSFormW-8BEN.htm

a decade from now Seal Team Six will be getting sent to raid chalets in Switzerland to drag some tax-dodging millionaire back to D.C. for his show trial.

Would I like to share a foxhole with somebody who puts money before country? Probably not, but that isn’t the issue. The issue is that we have a crap tax system that is causing certain wealthy people to leave, which actually leads to less revenue for the government.