TheEEStory.com

IRS has developed a new method of taxing people via confiscatory penalties. The penalty for failing to report a foreign bank account with high balance over USD $10,000 is 50% per year of the high balance even if no taxes were due or if the bank paid interest on the account and the interest was reported.

Some people on this site may be America citizens living in Canada, for example. If they have a bank account in Canada, which would be normal, and they file to file form TD F 90-22.1 separately from their tax return by June 30 and their high balance is over $10,000 in US dollars, then they would be subject to confiscation of 50% of the high balance for each year that the report is not filed.

A doctor with $4.3 million in his Panama account just had the entire amount confiscated because he had not reported it for 2 years. I don't know whether he reported interest received on the account or not, but either way his balance would be taken.

This is just a sneaky way of implementing a tax. Many Americans living abroad are not even aware that they need to file a 1040 personal tax return each year. Only the US and Eritrea tax citizens on worldwide income regardless of where they live instead of taxing people based on their residence.

Even if one is not required to file the report, they still have to file a 1040 showing that they have a foreign bank account or financial account and the relevant countries. Alternatively, they may be penalized 50% of the high balance each year.

ricinro wrote:

They [Isreal] do not take orders from Washington, have sunk a major US war ship and have frequently spied on us.-wcushman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

Is this the "major war ship? it wasn't sunk but the loss of life was bad enough.

Yes, that is the event I remembered. It is still not proven one way or the other if the attack was intentional. One point from that article was that the US opposed Israel attacking Syria, but they did so anyway, which shows how much control the US exercises over Israel:

"Motive: James Bamford, among others, says one possible motive was to prevent the United States from eavesdropping on Israeli military activities and monitoring the events taking place in nearby Gaza.[95] In a study of the incident concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support either accidental or deliberate attack, Colonel Peyton E. Smith wrote of the possibility that "The attack was most likely deliberate for reasons far too sensitive to be disclosed by the US (or) Israeli government and that the truth may never be known".[98] Author and former crew member James M. Ennes theorized, in the epilogue of his book Assault on the Liberty, that the motive was to prevent the ship's crew from monitoring radio traffic that might reveal Israel being the aggressor in its impending invasion of Syria, which the White House opposed. According to the Anti Defamation League "the argument that Israel knowingly attacked an American ship has always lacked a convincing motive".[99]"

If Lyndon Johnson could not restrain Israel, who thinks that Obama can?

wasmaba, thanks for the compliment earlier.

ei, the US is clearly not preparing for a war with Iran which in the worst case could mean loss of access to Middle Eastern oil possibly for a long time. If we wanted to be prepared, we would do things like convert our truck fleets to natural gas saving 3 million barrels of oil per day, incentives for natural gas powered cars and an infrastructure to refuel them, build the Keystone pipeline and several more so that we could buy as much Canadian oil as Canada could produce, and have government support, such as immediate approval of drilling requests and a minimum price guarantee for oil, to quickly increase our own production from every possible source. Since we are doing none of these things, we will not go to war with Iran and will try to discourage Israel from doing so. They do not take orders from Washington, have sunk a major US war ship and have frequently spied on us.

I believe everyone is convinced that Iran has built and is continuing to build an inventory of 20% enriched Uranium. Commercial reactors use from 1% to 5% enriched Uranium and research reactors use up to 20%. There is no use for enrichment beyond 20% other than nuclear warheads. Iran already has the capability to do incredible damage with the Uranium they already have by disbursing, or providing it to terrorists to disburse radioactive materials, to make places such as lower Manhattan or Tel Aviv uninhabitable after causing extensive death and injury. If drugs can get here, enriched Uranium can get here. Better than U-235 would be Cobalt-60 which they could produce in a research reactor fueled with their 20% enriched U-235. The Cobalt would be far more deadly and last over 100 years.

Israel is now estimated to have between 75 and 400 nuclear warheads in addition to delivery systems by air using F16s, submarines and deep underground ballistic missiles. The big question is whether or not Israel would be satisfied to attack the known locations where Iran is pursuing their nuclear ambitions to possibly delay Iran for several years, or if they would only feel secure by permanently eliminating an enemy that has promised to permanently eliminate them. If they choose the second path, it will be a good opportunity to measure the cooling effect per megaton of nuclear winter and see humanity saved from the devastating effects of warmer climate whether caused by humans or not. But, it is really up to Iran and Israel, not the US where a war with Iran would be highly unpopular.

Last edited Sun, 18 Mar 2012, 2:45am by wcushman

Power companies in the USA are switching their plans from nuclear to natural gas purely based on the economics.

"The U.S. nuclear industry seemed to be staging a comeback several years ago, with 15 power companies proposing as many as 29 new reactors. Today, only two projects are moving off the drawing board.

What killed the revival wasn't last year's nuclear accident in Japan, nor was it a soft economy that dented demand for electricity. Rather, a shale-gas boom flooded the U.S. market with cheap natural gas, offering utilities a cheaper, less risky alternative to nuclear technology."

From: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527023...

^ ^ ^ ^ ^
My theory is that people who actually believe (not just hypocrites involved for social reasons) in God and Satan, are disinclined to use the Scientific Method (See: http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-proj... ). They are able to draw loose conclusions from little are no testable data, and do not submit their conclusions for any substantiation. Thus their conclusions are attributed to "Faith", or the idea that their conclusions have a form of sacredness so that they are exempt from being questioned. People who do this are exhibiting a form of paranoia similar to actual paranoids who classify others as part of some plot when confronted with any fallacy in their ideas.

Then there are others who see the truth, but take advantage of it by trying to organize these paranoids to steal their money and labor. Thus is organized religion formed. The primary attributes are intolerance and domination of ideas to prevent any challenge. One idea that allows a cult or religion to be particularly successful is the idea that what matters during this lifetime is unimportant because people who obey the leaders (priests, ministers, mullahs and whatever) will be rewarded many times over in the afterlife. People who fall for this are very susceptible to ideas such as wrapping themselves in dynamite to commit suicide in the process of getting all their rewards more quickly.

This is why I find Santorum scary along with his followers who appear to believe his ideas about what God wants for everyone regardless of what they may think or want. As Abe Lincoln said after receiving thousands of letters about how God wanted him to pursue the War Between the States (not really a civil war), "As it is my responsibility, why does God not speak to me directly about what He wants".

My personal approach is that I want to avoid drawing any conclusions about anything without positive proof. There really do not need to be any answers about things which only exist as a result of hearsay over many generations. If one is not able to observe something or the effects of something (which can be proven to be the effects of that thing), then there really is no need to draw any conclusions because nothing one can do will have any effect on that thing. The ultimate in being illogical is a Supreme Being that is so powerful that it can create a universe, but does not have the will to do anything without the help of humans carrying out its will. No one understands from where the Universe came, but all survive very well without drawing any unprovable conclusions about it. There is no reason to have witch hunts based upon half-baked conclusions based on many false assumptions all lumped under the idea that there is really something good about having "Faith" as in "a man of Faith". Even Godless Communism had Faith. The Faith was Communism itself and the Communist Party which directed it and taught that history began with the Revolution that began in 1917 and the death of the last Tzar. Anyone with any evidence to the contrary had a very short life expectancy. Faith comes in many forms.

supamark wrote:

dvelasco68 wrote:

Supa,

It might be what you meant, but not what you wrote (no mention of 60's)...

And the Democrats did not passed the civil rights legislation... Both Republican & Democrats passed it....

supamark wrote:

You fail at reading comprehension. as I said AFTER the civil rights legislation passed in the mid 60's, Southerners (who were mostly democrat, and often racist) had to find a new party that didn't like people with brown skin (and the southern dem's that voted for the legislation were voted out next election). the republicans decided to court them. next time, understand before running your f'ing mouth. it was famously said that the civil rights legislation lost the south for democrats, and it was true.

you also apparently didn't read the part of the bill where employers can fire female employees who use (and pay for it on their own) birth control. that is certainly unconstitutional though in a right to work state it is redundant (unless they also want to get out of paying unemployment benefits).

when the fuck do you think the civil rights act passed? in the 60's, duh. and it was passed by LBJ (a man who knew how to get shit done in Washington, unlike our current president who doesn't twist enough arms).

There have been many Civil Rights Acts (1866, 1875, 1957, 1964, 1968, 1991). Dvelasco68 referred to civil rights legislation, not the Civil Rights Act. The 14th Amendment should be included under that definition.

Feel_the_LovEE wrote:

wcushman wrote:

dvelasco68 wrote:

...SKIP...
First off the birth control issue is matter of $9 a month... (cost at walmart for generic bc) hardly the issue it's made out to be...
http://www.chacha.com/question/how-much-does-bi...
...SKIP...

The pills require a prescription. Doctor visits are expensive, both directly and in time lost from work. But, if a woman is in Latin or South America, she can buy the pills without a prescription.

Your are full of it. Doctor visit is around $150 for a simple office visit. Or they can go to a community health office that has doctors. Either way, most doctors will write a script for a years worth or so before they ask you to come back in. You are looking at maybe $22 a month. Or use condoms/foam together and be safe from pregnancy AND STDs.

You must be really rich. A $150 doctor visit is significant to me. I think working 3 days (after withholding) at a minimum-wage job to pay $150 is significant. Not only are you full of shit yourself, you have no perspective. Also, learn that "your" is a possessive pronoun and not a contraction for "you are". Then you will be able to write English when you get past 6th grade.

Last edited Fri, 16 Mar 2012, 4:26pm by wcushman

dvelasco68 wrote:

...SKIP...
First off the birth control issue is matter of $9 a month... (cost at walmart for generic bc) hardly the issue it's made out to be...
http://www.chacha.com/question/how-much-does-bi...
...SKIP...

The pills require a prescription. Doctor visits are expensive, both directly and in time lost from work. But, if a woman is in Latin or South America, she can buy the pills without a prescription.

The funny thing is that the insurance companies have higher costs by not paying for birth control. They get to pay more OB/GYN expenses, particularly for females who find the cost of birth control difficult to handle. If they pass their costs along, which is what they say they do, the actual cost of providing birth control is negative. The mother (more than half the time) and taxpayers get stuck with the subsequent expenses of raising a child. That guarantees a sizable population of children being raised in economically disadvantaged circumstances because they are the expense that makes that household disadvantaged. It also guarantees a country where the taxpayers cannot afford the Government's spending.

Last edited Fri, 16 Mar 2012, 1:43pm by wcushman

We actually need to increase our exports by $41 billion per month to match our imports. The trade deficit is even more important than the tax deficit because it is all owed to foreigners who either will want to be paid or will buy US debt with their Dollars. If they buy US debt, they enable our Congress to continue their profligate spending. If they want to be paid, then they need to find a way to spend their dollars. Chinese buyers are already snapping up $1 million dollar new houses in California for cash where entire communities of the new wealthy class in America is being created.

We don't have a lot of options about what to export. Oil is the best opportunity in a few decades. So is LNG by ship kept at a temperature of -162C. We can switch trucks to CNG and LNG pretty quickly thereby reducing our own consumption of oil by 3 million barrels per day. CNG cars would then be possible since there would be a network of fueling stations across the country.

Oil prices tumble pretty quickly with even a small surplus worldwide similar to what happened in the early 1980s. We would have to increase our production as rapidly as India and China increase their consumption to keep oil at its current price. They are the source of net growth in world demand for the past 5 years during which time the US actually decreased consumption by nearly 10%. More production than that would cause prices to start declining.

Last edited Wed, 14 Mar 2012, 8:45pm by wcushman

It is going to be very difficult to argue that US produced oil and refined products can only be sold in the US as O'Reilly has proposed on "The Factor" among many others proposing the same.

US oil (WTI) is currently trading at $106/barrel while non-US oil (Brent) is trading at $126. The world market demand is putting upward pressure on prices in the US.

East Coast refineries, which were designed to process only Brent oil which is imported there, are shutting down because they are all losing money competing against oil produced in the US.

Healthcare in the US will never be affordable, either multi-payer or single-payer, because individuals do not shop it. It was affordable for most when there was no insurance because the individual made decisions about what care he would be willing to buy and the medical community could not price itself out of business. When an individual buys dinner at a restaurant, he is price conscious. When a group goes to a restaurant where the bill will be divided evenly, each individual understands that he will do well to spend as much as possible which results in a much higher cost per person and in total.

The solution which could work here is to have individuals be required to always pay 20% to 30% of the bill with the government or other insurer paying the remainder. Providers would have to disclose prices for procedures and tests in advance which they presently are forbidden by Federal law from doing under the theory, which is actually true, that price might influence people's decisions. There needs to be personal skin in the game to make medical service price sensitive, but the personal skin does not need to absorb 100% of the cost to make a market function. With prepaid medical care (0 skin) and no price-benefit information, medical care will never be affordable although there are gimmicks to reduce its cost. One major gimmick is to delay service hoping the patient dies or possibly gets better on their own. Of course, a smart doctor understands that his time, like an airline seat, is lost forever when he has a gap in his appointments. He would serve his own interests by giving a patient a secret kickback of the co-pay to fill his schedule (just show on his own books that it was one more noncollectable item). Then people would use the doctor with the lowest out of pocket regardless of the total price, all other things being equal. So, it might be best to have the insurer or government make the entire payment to the doctor and simultaneously collect from the patient to guarantee that the patient feels the co-pay.

Last edited Wed, 14 Mar 2012, 12:10am by wcushman

Fibb, you do realize I hope that a single payer US plan will still not cover you in Canada. The vast majority of Medicare recipients do not elect the single payer system available through Medicare. They choose a "Medicare Advantage" plan via a private insurer. I am on the single payer straight Medicare plan because my pre-Medicare doctor, who does not see Medicare patients including me now, advised me that all the private plans use doctors from the bottom of the barrel. So, I pay a 20% co-pay for things covered under part B which is doctor services such as office visits and surgeon's fees for hospital procedures. But, doctors have to accept Medicare price limits and bill me for 20% of that limit, not 20% of their regular charge. Also, Medicare only covers procedures done in the US. So people going to Mexico with their personal physicians for Pancreatic cancer treatments not approved by the FDA, pay in full. I know people whose Medicare Advantage plans have no surcharge and others who are paying an additional $300 per month depending on their choice of benefits covered. But people under straight (basic) Medicare have no gatekeeper, and can go directly to any Medicare accepting specialist they choose without pre-approval. I like the fact I am seeing a doctor who wants my business instead of a doctor who is being paid to keep an insurance company's expenses as low as possible by denying and delaying services.

Last edited Tue, 13 Mar 2012, 5:16pm by wcushman

Everyone 18 and older is going to have a photo ID. It is needed to drive, fly, apply for jobs, receive treatment under Medicare, and to receive Social Security benefits. I would bet it is also required for food stamps, welfare and Medicaid although I do not have personal experience with these. That is pretty much everyone who is eligible to vote with the possible exception of the underground economy. So, I do not believe having a photo ID is even a tiny hurdle for casting a proper vote once in each election where one is qualified.

tvillars wrote:

Kofman's options don't expire until Sept 14, 2014.

ZMC Options

TORONTO, ONTARIO, Sep 12, 2011 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- ZENN Motor Company Inc. ("ZMC" or the "Company") CA:ZNN -7.50% , announces that the Company has granted options to James Kofman in lieu of monetary compensation for his role as Interim CEO. Mr. Kofman has agreed to take no cash compensation from the Company for his current role and instead will be granted options to purchase 250,000 common shares. Mr. Kofman has further agreed that none of the options will vest unless and until there is a public announcement from the Company's partner EEStor Inc. showing significant progress in its technology development.

ZMC has also granted options to purchase 40,000 common shares to each member of the Board of Directors in recognition of the increased roles and responsibilities each of the Directors has taken on given the significant reductions made in personnel and resources at the Company. None of the options will vest unless and until there is a public announcement from the Company's partner EEStor Inc. showing significant progress in its technology development.

The exercise price of all of the above options will be fixed at the time of the grant and the options will expire if there has not been an announcement, as described above, within 12 months of the date of grant. The options will be exercisable for a period of two years from the date they vest.

... SKIP ...

I interpret the above announcement to mean that Kofman's 250,000 options granted 09/12/2011 will expire 09/12/2012 unless EEStore makes a significant announcement by that time. If a significant announcement is made, the options will then vest on the date of the announcement and expire 2 years after that time.