Cycle of War & Religion -2021/2022

Posted May 31, 2019 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION:

Hello Martin,
on Sept 12th 2013 you wrote about the ‘Return of the crusades’. Now, 6 years later, with the massive migrant crisis still ongoing, a lot of people consider leaving Western Europe bc Sharia law is looming everywhere. Mohammed takes the first place for baby names in many countries, sharia law spreads, kindergartens don’t serve pork anymore, Easter festivities in school get canceled bc of Ramadan, rapists and even murderers don’t go to jail bc neither the executive nor the judicative has capacities anymore to even open a trial and so on. At the moment, it looks as if Western Europe will become a caliphate within the next decade or two. With Migrants still flooding the continent and the birth jihad, it seems Europeans/Christians will vanish in the foreseeable future. I would like to know what Socrates has to say about this… will there be a counterstrike? Or a religious war? Right-wing parties rise everywhere, so the Europeans ARE fed up. But is there even enough TIME to turn things around…?

What do the cycles say?

Thx and cheers,

P

ANSWER: Unfortunately, the cycle of religious tension is also due in 2021/2022. The first recorded persecution of Christians took place under Emperor Nero who blamed them for setting the great fire in Rome. The base cycle on a major shift in religion turned up in 1990, which was 224 cycles of 8.6 from 64 AD. Add pi, 31.4 years, and we arrive at 2021/2022. Nevertheless, there was also rising tension with Islam itself. This I laid out in the 2015 Cycle of War report. When the economy turns down, that is when tensions rise. There was the religious war in Christianity known as the Byzantine Iconoclasm, which existed between about 726 and 787 AD. The peak before the war came 72 cycles of 8.6 from the Nero persecution of 64 AD. Then 96 cycles later we come to Martin Luther in 1517 when he posted 95 theses on the church door in the university town of Wittenberg. Cyclically right on time, in 1534 King Henry VIII declared himself to be supreme head of the Church of England. This resulted in a schism with the Papacy and began the events known as the English Reformation.

It appears we are building toward 2021/2022 when things are going to begin to get heated on a religious basis.

What were Roman Taxes v Modern Taxes?

Posted May 30, 2019 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: You do a lot of comparison to the Roman Empire. What was the size of the government relative to GDP? Can you estimate that?

GY

ANSWER: The Roman economy was more like the USA during the mid-19th century in that it was pre-industrial. About 80% of its inhabitants worked in agriculture, which was about where we were in 1840. There was no social agenda of trying to redistribute wealth from one class to the other. Still, there were social programs. But the socialistic agenda that was adopted by modern governments has sought not merely to redistribute wealth among the classes, but it has justified bigger government on a grand scale never before witnessed in history. The tax rate in the ancient Roman Empire was about 5% with some paying as little as 2%. The actual cost of government during the Roman Empire was minimal compared to the modern standard. The Roman Emperor Trajan (98-117 AD) formalized the alimenta, which was a welfare program that helped orphans and poor children throughout Italy. It provided general funds as well as food and subsidized education. The program was supported initially out of Dacian War booty, and then later by a combination of estate taxes and philanthropy. So there were programs to take care of people who needed help.

Virtually all the taxes and rents raised by the imperial government were spent on the military, which came out to be about 80% of the imperial budget in 150 AD. This military spending constituted about 2.5% of the empire’s GDP. Obviously, we do not really see separatists movement until the mid-3rd century when Valerian I (253-260 AD) was captured by the Persians. With the cost of the military coming in about 2.5%, this explains the lack of tax rebellions. The tax enforcement was nowhere near as intrusive as we see today. The US military budget comes in about 4% or twice that of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire lasted far longer than any modern state for it seems to have been much more tolerable of a burden, whereas the U.S. military budget will be around 20% at times of total expenditure.

The primary purpose of my investigation into the monetary system of the world is very simple. The political unrest ONLY rises when there is economic tension. Turn the economy down and you will get historically civil unrest. Additionally, it is interesting to see what policies produce the best and worst results. Augustus (27-14 AD) created a real land boom as he issued a tremendous amount of coinage creating a booming economy. He was followed by Tiberius (14-37 AD) who imposed austerity and issued very little coinage by comparison. That resulted in an economic depression in 33 AD and this was in part reflected in the Jewish rebellions over taxes. Remember the story that Jesus asks whose picture is on the coin and he replies to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s? So we can see the impact of austerity throughout history to extract the best policies under which we should live to promote like Rome – Pax Romanum

The Demise of the British Conservative Party?

Posted May 26, 2019 by Martin Armstrong

The term “Conservative” was suggested as a title for the party by a magazine article by J. Wilson Croker in the Quarterly Review in 1830. The name immediately caught on and was officially adopted under the aegis of Sir Robert Peel around 1834. However, it really began to take shape in 1812 when the name “Tory” was commonly used for a new party according to historian Robert Blake. Blake stated that Pitt’s successors after 1812 “were not in any sense standard-bearer’s of true Toryism”. Nevertheless, it was 1834 when the name “Conservative Party” was adopted and it replaced Tory as the dominant name by 1845.

There is no question that Britain has witnessed its economy decline every since joining the Eu back in 1973. The coup against Margaret Thatcher and the desire to even surrender the pound was only halted by the free markets during the ERM Crisis of 1992-1993. Had it not been for that crisis which actually made George Soros famous, the British pound would no longer exist for they would have been in the Eurozone.

Ironically, it has been Soros who has been opposing BREXIT and trying to fund the remain segment and advocates the surrender of the pound. The Telegraph reported that Soros “is one of three senior figures linked to the Remain-supporting campaign group Best for Britain who plan to launch a nationwide advertising campaign this month, which they hope will lead to a second referendum to keep Britain in the EU.” Soros has been backing the idea of one-world government in the EU.

The 224-Year Cycle of Political Change warns that by 2036, we may no longer see the Conservative Party. Theresa May never wanted to leave the EU – she was personally against it. All of the trade data proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no tremendous advantage to being in the EU.

What has been very clear is that Teresa May has really undermined the Conservative Party with its support falling below 10% in the EU elections. May’s defeat has been brought about by Brussels’ refusal to negotiate and thus May and just accepted that position and constantly tried to get Britain to surrender its sovereignty in the process. The Conservatives are on course for their lowest ever share of the vote in a nationwide ballot and many fear that they could even slip into fifth place behind the Greens. Remember one thing. Like plays and fashion which begin in London and then migrate to the USA, the same is true of politics. This is a warning to American political parties. Trump was elected NOT as a fluke, but as a vote against the establishment. We are witnessing the very same trend in Britain

Very rough patch for food production into 2024/2025

Failure to Plant Crops

Posted May 20, 2019 by Martin Armstrong

COMMENT: Good day from Chatham, Ontario Canada (50 miles east of Detroit 42.4048° N, 82.1910° W);
Interesting your models are warning of the next year’s results in climate change.

Our location is always the first to plant in Canada as it is the same latitude as northern California.
A few climate tidbits;

– As of today, May 18th, 2019, no farmers (zero) have started planting.
– In 3 years the percentage of April planting starts has decreased to 0% from 70% just 4 years ago. Typically planting was completed by mid to end of May.
– Flooding this year from Ottawa to Detroit along with cooler temperatures can wreak havoc on winter wheat crops which are planted in the fall and has germinated. But if the heat doesn’t come to dry up the land then the wheat crop is susceptible to rot.
– soil temperatures are below the 25-year average by 23 degrees.
– more rain means less sunshine.
– Songbirds in our area are unusual for May. Makes for a very noisy morning coffee.

Bird watchers reporting many species have not finished their normal migration north. Somehow they have stalled in lower latitudes knowing the northern food sources are not ready.
The birds singing is nice, but I would like to eat.
Best to you;

RH

REPLY: Others are reporting the same general trends. Some people write in and try to disagree with the forecasts. What they fail to understand is this is BY NO MEANS my “opinion” or what “I think,” for I do not see myself as qualified on such a personal level to forecast such events since I am not a farmer and have never been. My grandfather had maybe an acre where he grew grapes, fruit trees, and some other things like tomatoes. He was not a professional farmer.

All I can do is report what the computer is projecting and I believe it does a far better job than human forecasting simply because it just goes by the data and extracts the patterns upon cycles. I take no pleasure in warning that we could be headed into a very rough patch for food production into 2024/2025 if we see a colder and longer winter again next year.

Taxes

Posted May 19, 2019 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Wasn’t there an income in Britain under Addington in 1803 to pay for the war against Napoleon predate the USA? Is the income tax voluntary?

GH

ANSWER: Yes that is true. However, it actually predates even that. Income tax was first implemented in Great Britain by William Pitt the Younger in his budget of December 1798 to pay for weapons and equipment in preparation for the Napoleonic Wars. This was not really a Marxist/Socialism philosophy yet it was a graduated (progressive) income tax. It began at 2 pence on the pound (1/120) on incomes over £60 and increased up to a maximum of 2 shillings (10%) on incomes of over £200. It produced only about 60% of expectations.

It was Pitt’s income tax was levied from 1799 to 1802, when it was abolished by Henry Addington during the Peace of Amiens. However, Addington had become prime minister in 1801, after Pitt’s resignation. Addington then reintroduced the income tax in 1803 when hostilities once again appeared. This time it was not abolished in 1816, one year after the Battle of Waterloo.

Addington’s Act differed for this was a tax on ‘contribution of the profits arising from property, professions, trades and offices’ avoiding the use of the word “income”. The Act did allow taxation at the source meaning your account at the Bank of England was directed to deduct a tax amount from your account. This included a tax on interest paid to gilt holders. The maximum tax rate under Addington’s Act was 5%, which was half that of Pitt’s, but it was greatly expanded resulting in a tax increase of about 50%

These were imposed out of necessity. The taxes signed by President Taft were more of a socialistic philosophy which was gaining support at least prior to the Russian Revolution in 1917. The rise of the “progressive” movement came into real force with the Panic of 1893.

As far as the “voluntary” nature of the tax that is strictly true. However, the tax has a duty to file. The crime is a failure to file – not a failure to pay.

Congress v Trump – Have They Destroyed the Constitution?

Posted May 16, 2019 by Martin Armstrong

Originally, the Founding Fathers envisioned a government that was “We The People.” The structural design was based largely on the writings of Montesque and embodied the separation of powers — Executive (bureaucracy), Congress (the people), and the Judiciary (the arbitrator). Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), at the age of 81, gave his assessment of the direction of the country in his final speech before the Constitutional Convention:

“…when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views.”

He understood it would be impossible to expect a “perfect production” from such a gathering for he understood the cycles of history. After all, he was friends with Edward Gibbon who wrote the “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” and reviewed the text before it was published. Franklin believed that the Constitution they had just drafted “with all its faults” was still better than any alternative that was likely to emerge.

There is a serious fault in the Constitution that the Founding Fathers neglected to take into account. I believe their judgment was colored by the propaganda which survived from Cicero who painted Julius Caesar as a dictator when in fact it was his own political party, known as the Optimates, who were a conservative political faction in the late Roman Republic.  The Optimates were the corrupt senators who had to flee Rome when Caesar approached because the people cheered Caesar against the corruption of the Senate. Due to the failure to truly uncover other contemporary writers when Gibbon was doing his research, the design of the United States was fatally constructed upon these misconceptions and we are now paying the price for those mistakes.

The Constitution was not supposed to be a self-actuating or a self-correcting document. Unfortunately, allowing it to be amended has destroyed its very intent. Once they installed the income tax on a progressive basis, they conveniently interpreted that you can discriminate against class and occupation but not anything else from religion to race and gender. We have proven that there is no EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW and that the observation of Thrasymachus (c 459-400 BC) is the correct one of history — all governments interpret laws only in their own self-interest.

Even with constant attention and devotion of all citizens, our Constitution has utterly failed to protect our liberty and by far it never provides equal justice for all. There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: “A republic if you can keep it.” The brevity of that response was indeed a reflection of his understanding of the cycle of history. While we pretend to call ourselves a Democracy, we are by no means such an institution. We are exactly what Franklin replied: a REPUBLIC.

While it is a theory that democratic republics are founded upon the consent of the people, any review of history reveals that they are founded upon pretenses and have never been able to constrain those in power. Once they get a taste of that power, they abuse it. This is what drives the cycle of history which shows that society is born, matures, corrupts, and collapses by normally suicide taking shape as a revolution.

James Wilson (1742–1798) was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States who signed the Declaration of Independence as well as the United States Constitution. Wilson was elected twice to the Continental Congress representing Pennsylvania. He had a good legal mind and was a major contributor in drafting the United States Constitution. Because of his brilliant legal mind, he was also appointed as one of the six original justices to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Wilson believed that “the House of Representatives [shall] form the grand inquest of the state. They shall diligently inquire into grievances.” Indeed, the original idea was that Congress was elected by the people and was their representatives in a Republic. The Senate did not stand for election but were appointed to represent the state in which they served. The idea that Congress would be the overseer was essential. They were to have the power to investigate the executive branch. Under the Roman system, there was a Tribune who has the absolute power to investigate and criminally charge anyone in government. That became the watered-down version of the Office of Inspector General, which will investigate but is under the Justice Department in the Executive Branch which has no power to initiate its own actions.

However, the Constitution does not actually authorize such a power. It states:

SECTION 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

There is actually no provision of the Constitution which expressly authorizes either house of Congress to make investigations and exact testimony. Nevertheless, such a power had been frequently exercised by the British Parliament and by the Assemblies of the American Colonies prior to the adoption of the Constitution. It was asserted by the House of Representatives as early as 1792 when it appointed a committee to investigate the defeat of General St. Clair and his army by the Indians in the Northwest and empowered it to “call for such persons, papers, and records, as may be necessary to assist their inquiries.” (3 Annals Of Congress 490–494 (1792); 3 A. Hinds’ Precedents Of The House Of Representatives 1725 (1907)).

However, the Supreme Court has long since accorded its agreement with Congress that the investigatory power is so essential to the legislative function as to be “implied” as inherent even though it was never expressly granted.  In 1927, the Supreme Court wrote in McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174–175 (1927):

“We are of the opinion,” wrote Justice Van Devanter for a unanimous Court, “that the power of inquiry—with process to enforce it—is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. . . . A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information—which not infrequently is true—recourse must be had to others who possess it. Experience has taught that mere requests for such information often are unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed. All this was true before and when the Constitution was framed and adopted. In that period the power of inquiry—with enforcing process—was regarded and employed as a necessary and appropriate attribute of the power to legislate—indeed, was treated as inhering in it. Thus there is ample warrant for thinking, as we do, that the constitutional provisions which commit the legislative function to the two houses are intended to include this attribute to the end that the function may be effectively exercised.”

Chief Justice Warren, in a 1957 opinion, took a hostile approach to the exercise of the investigatory power by Congress. He wrote:

“The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them. It comprehends probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency or waste.” (Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957).)

Justice Harlan addressed the matter in 1959. “The power of inquiry has been employed by Congress throughout our history, over the whole range of the national interests concerning which Congress might legislate or decide upon due investigation not to legislate; it has similarly been utilized in determining what to appropriate from the national purse, or whether to appropriate. The scope of the power of inquiry, in short, is as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the Constitution.” (Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 111 (1959). See also Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 503–07 (1975).)

Congress has overstepped its bounds in using its investigative powers against the opposition party for purely political purposes. Partisanship has now not just influenced how those powers are used, it has become the dominant justification. A Democratic Congress investigated Richard Nixon. During the Clinton administration, the Republican-led House issued more than 1,000 subpoenas and held hearings on the Clintons. Now the Congress has gone completely far beyond its powers historically demanding Trump’s tax returns. This has nothing to do with his current administration nor does it have any relevance to legislation. Donald Trump has rightfully declared, “We’re fighting all the subpoenas,” and will sue to block them and instruct officials to ignore them. In this regard, the powers of Congress have been seriously abused over the decades. Partisanship renders oversight illegitimate. To ignore the partisanship is very dangerous because it is taking government in the direction of dysfunction.

Broad as the power of inquiry is, it is not unlimited. In Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1880), the Supreme Court dealt with the question of whether or not the House of Representatives could compel testimony. The Court found that the House did not have the power to punish for contempt. The power of investigation may properly be employed only “in aid of the legislative function.” Clearly, the Kilbourn decision would mean that the investigation launched against Trump has exceeded the outermost boundaries of the power of Congress. Those powers are confined by the outermost boundaries of the power to legislate. In principle, the Court is clear on the limitations, “that neither house of Congress possesses a ‘general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen’; that the power actually possessed is limited to inquiries relating to matters of which the particular house ‘has jurisdiction’ and in respect of which it rightfully may take other action; that if the inquiry relates to ‘a matter wherein relief or redress could be had only by a judicial proceeding’ it is not within the range of this power, but must be left to the courts, conformably to the constitutional separation of governmental powers; and that for the purpose of determining the essential character of the inquiry recourse must be had to the resolution or order under which it is made.”

In practice, much of the litigated dispute has been about the reach of the power to inquire into the activities of private citizens; an inquiry into the administration of laws and departmental corruption, while of substantial political consequence, has given rise to fewer judicial precedents. It would seem that the only way to eliminate this type of partisanship investigations would be to empower the Office of Inspector General to act independently of the Justice Department and that its powers should be that of the Roman Tribune. That means it should have the power to also investigate those in Congress.

Under the administration of Andrew Jackson, this power to investigate was coming into focus. During the controversy over the renewal of the charter of the Bank of the United States, John Quincy Adams contended that an unlimited inquiry into the operations of the bank would be beyond the power of the House (8 Cong. Deb. 2160 (1832)). Then in 1836, the legislative power of investigation was challenged by the Jackson. A committee appointed by the House of Representatives “with power to send for persons and papers, and with instructions to inquire into the condition of the various executive departments, the ability and integrity with which they have been conducted, . . .” (13 Cong. Deb. 1057–1067 (1836)) called upon the President and the heads of departments for lists of persons appointed without the consent of the Senate and the amounts paid to them. Jackson refused this attempt “to invade the just rights of the Executive Departments,” and the majority of the committee acquiesced in 1837 (H. R. Rep. No. 194, 24th Congress, 2d sess., 1, 12, 31 (1837)).

Then leading into the Civil War, Congress unleashed investigations and brought contempt proceedings against a witness who refused to testify in an investigation of John Brown’s raid upon the arsenal at Harper’s Ferry. There was a debate in the Senate of the basis of this power which was protracted and cut sharply across sectional and party lines. The Senate voted overwhelmingly to imprison the contumacious witness (Cong. Globe, 36th Congress, 1st sess., 1100–1109 (1860)). It was this abuse of power which was then constrained by the Supreme Court in a narrow view of the power in Kilbourn v. Thompson.

Therefore, my legal opinion is that Congress is abusing its power and I agree with the Kilbourn decision that they are not free to investigate members of the opposing party for political gains. Empower the Office of Inspector General to do all investigations – PERIOD!!!!!!

The Income Tax is Destroying the World Economy

Posted May 17, 2019 by Martin Armstrong

It is imperative that we MUST eliminate the income tax. It is a purely a Marxist development that is destroying the world economy. The income tax has become such a tyranny that our liberty, freedom of movement, and world economic growth are all at great risk. Never before in the history of human civilization do we find an income tax. It is true that Ben Franklin once said that the two certainties in life were death and taxes. It is equally true that taxes, in general, have been around since the beginning of civilization. We do know that the earliest recorded tax was implemented in Mesopotamia over 4500 years ago, where people paid taxes throughout the year in the form of livestock, which was the preferred currency at the time. The ancient world also had inheritance taxes, also known as estate taxes or death taxes. The earliest recorded evidence of a death tax came from ancient Egypt (700 BC), where they charged a 10% tax on property transferred at the time of death.

The most serious crisis we face is that with the dawn of Marxism (Communism/Socialism) the way we pay taxes has changed significantly. Yet, one for the record took place in 2006 when China eliminated what was the oldest existing tax in history. The agricultural tax was created 2,600 years ago and was eliminated in 2006 to help improve the well-being of rural farmers in China.

Taxation in the United States can be traced to the colonists when they were heavily taxed by Great Britain on many things from tea to newspapers. Legal and business documents were required to display a Stamp Tax. Most colonists objected to this form of taxation, since they had no political input about the creation of new taxes, giving rise to the term “taxation without representation.” After the American Revolution, the new government of the United States passed the Stamp Act of July 6th, 1797, which levied taxes on wills, personal estates, and the infamous death tax — the transfer of possessions of the deceased. The death tax only lasted 5 years and was abolished in 1802.

The first issue of US tax stamps occured on July 1, 1798, and had the name of the state incorporated in the design. This issue lasted until February 28, 1801. The highest denomination was $10. The second issue was authorized by the Act of April 23, 1801, and lasted from March 1, 1801 until June 30, 1802. It also carried denominations up to $10. The third federal issue was imposed by the Act of August 2, 1813, and was in effect from January 1, 1814 to December 31, 1817.

By the American Civil War, embossed tax stamps were replaced by printed tax stamps. Because of the demands upon the government to fund the Civil War, Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1862, which put taxes on boxes or packages of matches, perfumery, playing cards, documents, and then medicines. There was also an issue of paper printed by private firms under the supervision of the government with the tax stamp in place on checks, for example, which lasted from 1862 into 1883.

The government allowed the manufacturers to create their own stamps at their own expense. The government allowed the various companies to add 5% to 10% premiums on their products if they covered the costs of manufacturing the tax stamps. This private tax stamp system was in use until July 1, 1883, when the Act of March 3, 1883 took effect.

The first income tax was created in 1861 during the Civil War as a mechanism to finance the war effort. In addition, Congress passed the Internal Revenue Act in 1862, which created the Bureau of Internal Revenue, an eventual predecessor to the IRS. The Bureau of Internal Revenue placed excise taxes on everything from tobacco to jewelry. However, the income tax did not last and was not renewed in 1872. In the Springer v. United States 102 US 586 (1881), the Supreme Courtupheld the income tax.

Justice Swayne wrote the opinion of the court. The central and controlling question in the case was whether the tax which was levied on the income, gains, and profits was Constitutional since it forbid any direct taxation. The court played games with the words to uphold the government. It wrote: “Our conclusions are that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty.” A Capitation tax is an assessment levied by the government upon a person at a fixed rate regardless of the property, business, or other circumstances. The reasoning used was clearly overruled later which necessitated amending the Constitution in 1913.

Moreover, the Revenue Act of 1862 created a federal estate and gift tax system. Following the end of the Civil War, those taxes were rolled back but the War Revenue Act of 1898 created another death tax to raise revenue for the Spanish-American War.

An 1894 statute was ruled unconstitutional in the case of Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company 157 U.S. 429 (1895) delivered by Chief Justice Fuller. He wrote for the court: ” Whether the void provisions as to rents and income from real estate invalidated the whole act? 2, whether, as to the income from personal property as such, the act is unconstitutional as laying direct taxes? 3, Whether any part of the tax, if not considered as a direct tax, is invalid for want of uniformity on either of the grounds suggested? — the justices who heard the argument are equally divided, and, therefore no opinion is expressed.”

The origin of the current income tax on individuals is generally cited as the passage of the 16th Amendment, passed by Congress on July 2, 1909, and ratified February 3, 1913. It was on June 16, 1909, President William Howard Taft, in an address to the Sixty-first Congress, proposed a two percent federal income tax on corporations by way of an excise tax and a constitutional amendment to allow the previously enacted income tax. Once this Marxist concept of direct taxation was created, then the government must know everything we do, track us for it assumes we all cheat and lie, and in the process, it is hunting money globally to the point that world economic growth has been declining.

It was Obama who pushed FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act) that requires all foreign entities to report on anything they do with Americans outside the USA or else their assets will be confiscated in the USA. The FATCA legislation was passed into law in 2010 as part of the unrelated jobs legislation known as the HIRE law. FATCA is a broad, complex set of rules designed to increase tax compliance by Americans with financial assets held outside the United States. Consequently, no American can have a bank account outside the USA, for banks will no longer accept the risk that an American failed to pay their taxes. Prior to FATCA, growth rates were generally greater than 6% reaching 7% in 2004 annually. Since then, the highest growth rate was 5.4% in 2018.

All countries are now hunting taxes and destroying would economic growth. The tax dispute UBS is in now with France will occupy them for years to come. At the end of February 2019, a Paris-based criminal court ordered UBS to pay a fine and pay 5 billion Swiss francs in damages because the big bank helped wealthy French between 2004 and 2012 to hide their money from the tax authorities. UBS has moved on. It will take years to reach a final decision. The entire Swiss secrecy policy was installed because of Hitler who made it a crime to have money outside of Germany. Hitler did not invade Switzerland nor did he have his fake court impose huge fines on Swiss banks. Today, governments no longer respect international law.

The entire direct taxation is what the Founding Fathers in the US forbid. We are now witnessing the destruction of the world economy and everyone is being hunted globally. The Common Reporting Standard (CRS) is an information standard for the automatic exchange of tax and financial information on a global level. It was put together by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) back in 2014. Its purpose was to hunt down tax evasion primarily for the European Union. They took the concept from the US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), which imposed liabilities on foreign institutions if they did not report what Americans were doing outside the country.

The legal basis of the CRS is the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters. As of 2016, 83 countries signed an agreement to implement it. First reporting took place in September 2017. The CRS has many loopholes, for countries have to sign the agreement. This has omitted the United States as well as most developing countries. Note that countries that are included are China, Singapore, Switzerland, most tax havens, and of course Australian/New Zealand as well as Canada.

As of 2018, the signing nations to avoid are:

Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Australia, Austria, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Belize, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, China, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Dominica, Ghana, Grenada, Hong Kong (China), Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Marshall Islands, Macao (China), Malaysia, Mauritius, Monaco, Nauru, New Zealand, Pakistan, Panama, Qatar, Russia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sint Maarten, Switzerland, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Vanuatu