When discussing tax havens I think we should adopt the hideous ubiquitous tautology of a safe haven.

I think it would be a challenge to people's thinking when we say "tax safe haven". They'd reply "Pardon, a safe haven". We reply, "yes, you know, a place of safety for YOUR money".

When discussing tax havens I think we should adopt the hideous ubiquitous tautology of a safe haven.

I think it would be a challenge to people's thinking when we say "tax safe haven". They'd reply "Pardon, a safe haven". We reply, "yes, you know, a place of safety for YOUR money".

Physically leave the high tax (and higher government SPENDING) county and renouce citzenship (after you have left).

That is the way out fort wealthy people, or people with valuable skills.

However, various "world leaders" (including the pathetic British Prime Minister Mr Brown) keep pushing for world regulations and world taxation - to cut off even this escape.

As for banks - the oldest private bank in Switzerland (that formally put out a statment "Farewell to America" explaining why it would not do business in America any more) would seem to be the least bad bank to put money in.

Too bad that doesn't work very well for Americans. Our government asserts ownership of us and our assets anywhere in the world, even after renouncing your citizenship. If an American is going to follow that strategy you'd better make sure you liquidate and expatriate all of your holdings in this country, and then find a new home without a tax (and/or extradition) treaty. Good luck with that.

"Too bad that doesn't work very well for Americans."

Here is someone who pisses all over that. You might not like him, but that man has had the courage for longer than I have been alive to act on conviction.

We forget, at our peril, the fact that many of the freedoms we used to take for granted (and which have been extensively assaulted by New Labour), were there to protect ordinary people from the overwheening power of the State. The fact that they allowed a few dodgy (or downright bad) people to hide various things was a bug, not a feature.

A current example is the intention of the State in Scotland to follow the terrible example of England in abandoning the double jeopardy rule. Think you've had a fair trial and been acquitted by a jury of your peers, so you are now an innocent man again? Think again. Criminal law will now be a bit like EU referenda: they'll keep on trying till they get the right answer, which is "Guilty".

And people support this because a few Mr. Bigs might get locked up. First they came for the Mr. Bigs...

You might not like him

Mike, you missed my point. Whether or not I "like him" (and I do) is irrelevant; he has decided to flout the law and, so far, gotten away with it. More power to him. But I was responding to the suggestion by Paul Marks that we could legally avoid confiscatory taxation by leaving the country. I was merely pointing out that under US law that doesn't work. If you want to use illegal means, fine, have at it, but that was not the issue I was addressing.

"Mike, you missed my point."

I didn't actually - it's just that your point (the obvious legal difficulties of escaping from the Feds) is rather overshadowed by his example of alternative strategy. It isn't for everyone of course, but moving onto enemy ground (pop democ) to reason our enemies into not being our enemies just isn't working and nor, given current demographic and educational trends, is it likely to work before I am a bitter old man turning the pieces of a broken business over in my hands. I'd rather just throttle the bastards before they get the chance.

When you figure out how to do that please let me know.

Yes I get your point Laird.

In some ways the United States has indeed a brutal and repressive regime.

However, once a nation has accepted you as a citizen there are many that will not send you back to the United States without evidence of a serious crime.

Sadly Britain is not one of those nations - indeed the British government is prepared to send British subjects (who have never even visited the United States) to America to be put on trial for "financial offenses" (assuming the accused survive an American prison - most people will confess to anything after few night be raped and so on) without any real evidence against them.

"We think so and so iis guilty of a zarny whoop financial offense".

No question of asking for hard evidence or even a clear definition of what "zarny whoop" (or whatever) is in relation to Common Law fraud - it is simply off to America you go.

Next stop sharing a cell with hairy Al and his friends - unless, of course, you wish to "make a deal".

Although, I personally am so far to the left that even the democrats appear to me to be "right-wing," I consider myself to be a strict constitutionalist. It is my opinion that since its inception there has been an organized and systematic assault by the conservatives in the United States (and in the other industrialized nations) on the civil liberties written into the US Constitution. The “War on Drugs”; “War on Terror”; “War on Communism” and a host of other wars waged by the right wing are really nothing more than a War on People--an excuse to erode civil rights to the point of non-existence. I invite you to my website devoted to raising awareness on this puritan attack on freedom: http://pltcldscsn.blogspot.com/

David Scott both banning drugs and banning booze (prohibition) were Progressive causes. Another Progressive cause was the social hygine movement (eugenics and other such). Only hard core conservative "reactionaries" opposed it.

As for strict Constitutionalism.

I applaud your strict Constitutionalism - liberty needs more people who denounce such unconstitutional programs as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and ..........

And on Civil Liberties your support for the right to keep and bare arms (the basis of all other Civil Liberties) is warmly welcomed.