Another of history's many lessons is that governments under pressure become thieves. And today's governments are under a lot of pressure.
Before we look at the coming wave of asset confiscations, let's stroll through some notable episodes of the past, just to make the point that government theft of private wealth is actually pretty common.
• Ancient Rome had a rule called "proscription" that allowed the government to execute and then confiscate the assets of anyone found guilty of "crimes against the state." After the death of Julius Caesar in 44 BC, three men, Mark Anthony, Lepidus, and Caesar's adopted son Octavian, formed a group they called the Second Triumvirate and divided the Empire between them. But two rivals, Brutus and Cassius, formed an army with which they planned to take the Empire for themselves. The Triumvirate needed money to fund an army of its own, and decided the best way to raise it was by kicking the proscription process into overdrive. They drew up a list of several hundred wealthy Romans, accused them of crimes, executed them and took their property.
Yes it's called taxes..... thats where it started.
Government must remain the supreme authority and govern, otherwise it isn't government but just a rather large band of robbers, indeed probably the largest. Of those two mandates, if it can't govern, it will prefer to preserve its supreme authority, in hopes of re-establishing itself as the effective government. Therefore, in extremis, anything goes in the pursuit of government. Even the democratic ideal expressed in the slogan "Government of the people, by the people, for the people" will give way to government of the people, by the government, for the government. You never heard of a member of government who thought that in the event of nuclear war or a civilisation-destroying natural disaster, there ought not to be a survival plan and bunker provided for them because there would be no need for them to survive and govern the ruins and remnants. You never heard of that, because there never was such a person who would admit that.
Poland recently jumped on the 'all your pension are belong to us' bandwagon. Ottawa is doing so slowly and its next move is to take over/destroy REITs. Time to get some Bitcoin!
Ah, yes -- the liquidation of the kulaks. Or closer to home the Quebec government in the 1970s stealing the Quebec teachers' pension plan.
The reason I have more respect for the pirate than the socialist is that the pirate makes no bones about who or what he is, and has the guts to take the personal risks involved in taking the wealth of others. The socialist wants someone else to do the dirty work for him while putting on self-righteous airs.
Governments BECOME thieves?
Thieves go there because that's where the money is.
I see a 25% plus theft on every paycheque
So while the Koch brothers sleep with one eye open, George Soros and the Hollywood elite maintain a minimum of 40 restful winks, each and every night.
If your assets are visible (i.e. in a registered bank acct or investment) they will be stolen in a SHTF scenario. We have statute here in Canada allowing the Feds, during a national financial crisis, to scoop any visible assets you may have in a bank and issue "credits" against your tax liability in return.
In the US this only extends to the feds directly robbing government employees - but they will get to private assets through the Fed who will squeeze its reliant banks for assets to shore up government demands.
This is why I laugh at the little Fed toadies in uniforms that have been getting in the face of the American public with their quasi-martial enmity - these suckers thought they were on the winning side in the culture war but they will be the first thrown to the wolves when big brother goes insolvent.
The IMF are considering the top three ways to solve their debt problems: deflation, inflation, taking assets from savers.
I wonder how far down their list is: stop spending you frickin morons!
This is not going to end well.
Let the Mob run the country, because we know they are efficient, even though they are open about being crooks. Then let the government run organized crime and it will soon collapse under the weight of bureaucracy and result in a more law-abiding society.
When Obama won the last election (by voter fraud) my wife changed her investments and got rid of her US investment funds. Good thing she did. Most of them lost a chunk of their value and she would have lost a whole lot.
In the event that the liberals or NDP possibly win the next election I will be cashing in my investments. I may lose a chunk of it for early withdrawal but the flip side is lossing all of it when the math/economically-challenged left destroy the economy and then possibly start enacting austerity measures.
Actually the Second Triumvirate didn't initiate proscription...they just exploited it.
In the century previous, Sula proscribed many citizens. The list of names was posted and those listed could be killed by anyone...no formal execution.
One fella seeing his name posted remarked " MY Alban farm has killed me" and fled.....he didn't get far.
I like this line:
"people will accept the tax because they are confident it’s a one-time only thing."
Uh...no...., it's a test run and if they get away with it the revolution is on. Someone that steals from you once will steal from you again unless the backlash is severe enough. They continue to steal in small increments but it hasn't been enough to break the camels back. The next step would do it.
If the government confiscates assets from bank accounts or stock portfolios what happens to the incentive to save and invest for your own retirement independent of government pensions? Government confiscation via a 'one-time' wealth tax is a short term solution that won't fix the underlying problem of too much spending and will cause long-term problems.
I think I will be buying bullion, a GPS and a shovel rather than RRSPs should the Libs or Dippers ever form the government.
The problem is that Obama now has an army. An army that feels entitled to and demands free stuff. The "Mooching" class so to speak. If I was American I would be worried that Obama will basically extort the supertax. "You don't want to pay, well I happen to know the "public" won't like it. It would be a shame for anything to happen to your business!" The Chicago way! FORWARD!!!
GPS to help you hide your bullion from the government? Better get a compass and a paper map. And pay cash for them.
Al, I believe your sentiment is typical.
It is interesting that the US economy tanked in 2008 right when it became clear that Obama would win the election. Hmm.
But the talking heads all said it was "Bush's fault", so never mind.
The "conscription of wealth" is Part of 'The Regina Manifesto'. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, when elected to Federal Government, were going to conscript private wealth to be used for the greater good. The modern NDP still consider the Regina Manifesto an asset.
http://cooperativecommonwealth.ca/regina_manifesto.pdf
Asset forfeiture under War on Drugs is not much different from outright theft. Politicians designed it so the local police departments benefit from the program and the amount of $$$ it collects has risen dramatically over the years.
"Columnist George Will wrote earlier this year of a case in Massachusetts, where law enforcement is attempting to take the motel owned by a family because of allegations that some visitors there dealt drugs from their rooms. “The U.S. Department of Justice intends to seize it, sell it for perhaps $1.5 million and give up to 80 percent of that to the Tewksbury Police Department, whose budget is just $5.5 million. The Caswells have not been charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime.”"
( Via Reason).
And that's just the tip of the iceberg but because it happens to "criminals" no one cares. So could the government convince the public that the upper middle class and above are criminals? I don't think so. That definition would include too many in the progressive base : media, academics, investment brokers, public service unions, celebrities and politicians themselves. That's a lot of exemptions to hand out. Even France's Hollande couldn't overtax the ultra rich, let alone the not-so-rich. The party who did it would be destroyed and the backlash would last for a generation (see Canada's own NEP program). As my old foreman would say about OT scamming "Be careful. You can fleece a sheep many times but only skin it once"
I'd say that cuts and conventional tax grabs are more likely - raising the age for pensions, claw backs, lowering benefits, closing loopholes AND more fees and higher taxes across the board. Perhaps even selling assets like Italy, Greece and the UK (mail) are doing. The bureaucracy will be protected of course. At best a mild purge before another period of bingeing.
...and don't forget sin taxes. The mother of all revenue generating sin taxes is carbon taxes. I believe the #1 reason for pushing this form of tax is that it is every overspending governments last hope without having to consider spending cuts. The benefits of temperature reduction for most carbon tax scenarios is between .0X-.00X Celsius by the end of the century, if I remember correctly. So basically nothing in exchange for billions or trillions diverted from the productive economy to government. I know proponents want to believe it will be revenue neutral and/or targeted towards climate change projects but history clearly shows that this will not be the case. Think of current gas taxes and cigarette taxes.
Cypress.
Cyprus too.
There is a reason our governments are properly referred to as the Kleptocracy.
Ticks never drop off until they are fully engorged.
And the signals are explicit from our dear leaders, any wealth they can identify will be stolen, to allow them to continue to live in the manner to which they feel entitled.
Funny how the "Common Good" never applies to the working people.
LC, you are quite correct about 'asset seizure'. Can't remember where I was reading about it - probably the New Yorker - but there was a county in the US where the cops would routinely stop cars for 'dirty windshield', 'driving too slowly', etc., and then confiscate any and everything they could get their hands on. The statute allowed the state to 'share' the proceeds with the county, so the county cops saw this as a way to pad their bankroll without raising taxes. Even after dozens of cases were overturned (and only after large expense and agony on the part of the defendants, where, in a shocking reversal of 'justice', the onus was on them to show that the materials should be returned), the main cop in charge defended everything he'd done.
"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you." riiiiiiiiiiiiiight....
Correction, that would be:
"Hi, I'm from the government; we're here to help OURSELVES."
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Very interesting. But, it still won't stop the debt continue to grow. This would just be a one-time payment to clear off the current debt. You see, the government would still be paying out more than it takes in, and destroying productive enterprise.
I'm surprised that libertarian leaning politicians and activists don't highlight this more. It's the perfect example of:
1)an over-hyped crisis (drugs)
2)to justify a suspension of rights (property and freedom)
3)to increase the size and power of government
4)at great expense to the taxpayer
5)but has failed miserably in its original goal
Progressives avoid it because it shows the corruption of government. Conservatives avoid it because it shows the futility of using the government to impose morality. Which makes it perfect for illustrating libertarian ideas on personal and economic freedom.
I recall someone doing a video or report showing that if you confiscated every single profit in the US and all the income generated by the wealthiest individuals, you couldn't even fund the government for a year. Then it would all be gone.
Thing is, the confiscation of wealth wouldn't even work anymore in most countries. The governments are so far in debt the only way out is to print more money and inflate the dollar. There are really no other solutions.
Its already happened once . The banks in collusion with the Government in the Depression stole individual savings accounts. When people demanded their saved money. To protect the banks. Its why up till the 60's to get people to open accounts they gave free TV's or radios away. Those people hiding their earnings in Mattresses did so for a reason.
After all our Governments members are entitled to their entitlements at any cost.
My granny had 8000 saved in 29. All of it was stolen by the bankers to keep them afloat.
Is there nothing our politicians would not do to keep living the life they are accustomed to?
Its why offshore accounts are bulging.
Was Sula a liberal socialist or a right wing conservative? You left out that info; and that is the most important consideration. Could you please clarify. Thank you.
Bitcoin. Designed to solve the problem. Solves the problem.
"Bitcoin. Designed to solve the problem. Solves the problem."
Only until it becomes a threat to the established currency. If it gets past the novelty stage you will be amazed how fast the servers come down and how that money in the "cloud" evaporates. Virtual money will turn into virtually nothing.
No servers to tear down. It's P2P. That's the "designed to solve the problem" part.
Never paid much attention to bitcoin but now you've sparked my interest. I still maintain it will only remain functional until it becomes a threat to established currency. The US $ is the world standard (for now) and the government would never allow it to be threatened.