We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
I may have said this before but… …the state is not your friend.
Ira Stoll over on Reason.com has an excellent article drawing the obvious parallel between the Nazi era Reichsfluchsteuer tax imposed on fleeing Jews and the ‘exit taxes’ being imposed on US subjects seeking to leave the USA.
Read the whole thing.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Canada has a similar tax and, so far as I know, has had it for a very long time. It’s not a capital gains tax, as such, but if you own a company and give up your Canadian residence they make an estimate of their presumed revenue “loss” and take that from you. I can’t remember how the formula works, but it’s something along the lines of projecting from previous years’ revenue to predict the revenue over the next five years.
The US already has a rule like that, Tedd. Basically, the “exit fee” (as I recall it) is 5 years worth of future taxes. Schumer et al merely want to up the ante; their rapaciousness knows no bounds.
Incidentally, Mr. Saverin has already paid that fee (I’ve read it estimated at upwards of $500 million). Also, it should be noted that: (1) He was born in Brazil, and so is not a “native-born” citizen and thus presumably owes something less in the way of “allegiance” to this country; (2) he has been a permanent resident of Singapore for a number of years; and (3) he renounced his US citizenship last year, long before Facebook announced its IPO. (The whole remunciation process can take as long as two years, so it’s safe to assume that he began it quite a long time ago.) But of course none of that matters to such moral pygmies as Sen. Schumer.
Simon Black also wrote an article today on this same issue (kindly reprinted in Zerohedge(Link)). It’s short, but gives a little more of the history of the US version of the escape tax.
Reichsfluchsteuer is the perfect name for it. I hope it catches on.
Where you were born is something you don’t have any control over. What does that have to do with any presumed allegiance to a geographical area or the criminal gang controlling it.
So in the Canadian case you sell your company and bug out with the cash a little later?
Australia also has an exit fee, for people leaving by plane. What makes it worse is that it was brought in by Fraser, Prime Minister of a Liberal Party! (In Australia, ‘Liberal’ still has its’s original British meaning of pro-freedom and limited government.)
Does this fit the rule “the side invoking the Nazis first is losing the argument?” I hope not.
For folks on the left, the “fair” rate is always X% higher than it is now.
I think the article points out that this was a Weimar era tax that was nonetheless used by the Nazis, so accusations of Godwin may get off on a technicality 😉
Actually for those that see parallels that is quite a germane point. How many other pieces of legislation have been passed that can be used very effectively by a future hard-totalitarian regime?
The special state police (the Gastapo) were also a creation of the Weimar Republic.
As Weimar got rid of trial by jury also.
Imperial Germany was not a good place – but Weimar Repulic (with its “social rule of law” replacing the “rule of law” – see F.A. Hayek “Constitution of Liberty” and “Law, Legislation of Liberty”) was a nighmare – it truly did pave the way for the tyranny of the National Socialists.
Germanic “Cameralist” thinkers (going all the way back to the 16th century) had dreamed of a state that controlled life – useing terms that translate into English as “welfare state” and “police state” (unlike modern “liberals” the German thinkers understood that, in the end, one can not have one without the other).
Frederick the Great made great strides towards this “ideal” (it astonishes me how many “pro freedom” people have admired Frederick the Great over the last couple of centuries) – but there was actually great DEREGULATION in Prussia after the death of Frederick (the end of serfdom, getting rid of many other economic regulations and so on) – indeed there was a real liberal period in Prussia (although such things as STATE EDUCATION were not got rid of – indeed it spread in the German lands and outside them).
However, from the time of Bismark onwards statism started to expand again – and was copied around the world (for example both the American Progressives and British politicians were inspired by the Prussian example).
Still it is not till Weimar that Germany has close to modern levels of taxation and government spending.
And close to modern levels of the destruction of the rule of law and its repacement with the “social rule of law” – i.e. tyranny.
The Nazis completed the process of Progressive reform and modernisation.
However, the defeat of Germany in World War II gave space for a major reaction.
West Germany (after the great deregulation and so on – done actually against the wishes of the occupyers), actually had a smaller government (in size and scope) than under the Weimar Republic (although still much bigger than in 1914).
Britain collapsed into Labour party rule after World War II (the economic and polticial system set up by the Atlee government essential doomed Britain to eventually become a power of little importance).
But the United States had a prosperious and relatively free period.
However, the “Great Society” esperiment in statism launched in the 1960s has slowly changed that.
Indeed, in some ways, the United States is now a more statist place than Germany now is.
And Britain?
See above.
All that being said…..
A good post by Perry.
And a useful comment by Laird.
Dale Halling, a writer with an interest in IP issues, and the business climate in the US regarding innovation and wealth creation, has this observation(Link) about the issue.
Death taxes are exit taxex
For a take on much of what Paul is talking about and a very funny read try, Jerome K Jerome’s “Three Men on the Bummel”. It’s the sequel to “Three Men in a Boat”. Should be available dead cheap. Mine cost a quid.
I didn’t realise that ““No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property” was part of the UN’s universal declaration of rights.
I know what we think of “rights” here, but seriously, where does that leave Tony Blair’s “Proceeds of Crime” act?
(For non-UK readers I will explain that this is a law which lets the State take away your property if the police think you’re a bad lot – no need for conviction, a trial, or even a charge. No, really, it does. Honest.)
Our lords and masters have long ago redefined property to mean ‘that which I let you keep until further notice’.
I go for a sort of modified Godwin’s law. You should not say “X is as bad as Hitler” unless they actually are as bad as Hitler, so “Stalin was as bad is Hitler” is fine, whereas “David Cameron is as bad as Hitler”, less so. On the other hand, if some politician is suggesting doing something bad, and the Nazis did the same thing and it was bad for the same reason, they deserve the comparison, frankly
Michael J: yes.
Shrieks of “Godwin” are just as much a way of shutting down debate as ” conspiracy theorist! “, “denialist! ” and ‘” flat earther! ”
If the comparison is fair then it should stand, which is probably exactly why the cry goes out so often.
AFAIK, the “law” does not make any value judgement whatsoever, but rather makes the observation that Nazi Germany is likely to be used as an argument in a political debate at some point or other. I could be wrong.
It is Reichsfluchtsteuer, ‘Flucht’ meaning ‘flight’ while ‘Fluch’ means ‘curse. Not sure that Reichsfluchsteuer would be entirely inappropriate though.
Regarding Weimar precedents: enabling acts(Link) are another device that precedes Hitler.
Nuke gray, trust me, The Liberal Party in Australia isn’t in favour of freedom and limited government. See John Howard’s gun laws for one, his housing subsidies etc etc.
Malcom Fraser has left the party as it was too right wing for him. He was the betrayer of Rhodesia by the way and was a fairly incompetent Labor PM by most standards of behaviour. He only looked good for a while because his predecessor(Whitlam) was not only thoroughly incompetent but delusional and still is(he’s over 90 and still a burden on the Aussie taxpayer). Whitlam’s reputation is being rehabilitated however by the present Labor government led by Gillard. Not only incompetent and delusional but evil too.
Just getting back to the basic premise of this post, this quote from The Divine Invasion by PK Dick (who knew, or thought he knew, a thing or two about state interference in his life) seems apposite:
The two of them took the local rail to the school. A fussy little man met them, a Mr. Plaudet; he was enthusiastic and wanted to shake hands with Manny. It was evident to Elias Tate that this was the government. First they shake hands with you, he thought, and then they murder you.
Andrew – as you may know…
In the United States the grabbing of private property you describe is known as part of the RICO statutes.
The public were told that these would only be applied to evil Mafia bosses.
But violating the property rights of one group of people tends to spread to other groups of people.
In Britain the confiscation of property goes back even before New Labour.
Enoch Powell opposed.
But I do not think many other M.P.s did.
After all (at first) it was only evil drug dealers who were going to be robbed.
Reversal of the burden of proof.
One has to prove that the property is not from crime (hard when one’s money has been “frozen” so one can not pay a lawyer) the state does not have to prove that it is from crime.
“But the U.N. declaration of rights…..”
Like the French Revolutionary declaration – it is worded in such a way as to make it (mostly) useless for libertarian purposes.
After all it was written by Harold Laski and E.H. Carr (amongst other scumbags).
Nick.
Yes the book does show that Imperial Germany was not a very free place (compared to England), but much better than Weimar Germany.