Over 10% of US largest firms pay no tax

One in nine companies listed on the S&P 500 paid an effective tax rate of zero percent over the past year.

Among companies listed on the S&P 500, almost one in nine paid an effective tax rate of zero percent – or even lower – over the past year, according to an analysis by USA Today.
There are 57 separate companies listed on the index that paid a zero percent rate from the past year. Those companies include both household names like Verizon and News Corp. and lesser-known corporate giants like the data storage manufacturer Seagate (market value $15.9 billion) and Public Storage (market value $29.5 billion). Many of the companies USA Today identified in its analysis as paying negative rates make the list because they lost money, but several were profitable. Previous analyses have shown that the typical corporation pays a lower effective tax rate than most middle-class families, and a far lower one than the statutory corporate tax rate against which business interests disingenuously rail.
Getting to a zero percent tax rate despite turning a profit requires creative accounting, but not lawbreaking. The corporate tax code allows companies to avoid tax liability even in years when they turn a profit. Some of the profitable companies on the newspaper’s list, such as General Motors, achieved a zero percent rate by banking tax credits from previous years when business was bad. But the more common gambit involves moving revenues from parent companies to offshore subsidiaries based in tax haven countries in the Caribbean, Europe, and elsewhere.
Such offshoring of profits has caught the attention of policymakers in the United States and Europe this year, with the focus predominantly on Apple Inc. The US tech giant not only avoided the American tax system, but managed to shelter about $100 billion in revenues from any taxes at all. That scheme relied upon a loophole in Irish law which that country’s government says it intends to fix, but the narrow change proposed by Ireland’s finance minister will not address the larger problem of corporate tax avoidance.

Tax dodging costs the US about $300 billion per year. Much of that lost revenue is from individuals, rather than corporations. The country is cracking down on individual tax dodgers and striking deals with countries like Switzerland and the Cayman Islands that will help identify tax cheats starting in 2014. The corporate tax avoidance problem is thornier, as it is generally done through entirely legal methods. Coordinating international tax law in a way that would minimize corporate tax trickery is very difficult under the current approach, and a paradigm shift in business tax law may be necessary to end the accounting practices that rob countries of tax revenue. Think Progress
ARA/ARA

Source: Press TV

Swiss Campaign Against Corporate ‘Fat Cats’ to ‘Pull Out All the Stops’

A fight to shrink income inequality by limiting executive pay and increasing worker’s wages in Switzerland is heating up this week as organizers are promising to “pull out all the stops” ahead of a November 24th referendum.
The “1:12” initiative in question would limit monthly executive pay to no more than what the company’s lowest-paid staff earn in a year.
Although recent polls have shown voters are split down the middle on the initiative, recent campaigns in the country in the recent past have proven very successful.  A referendum, which bans so-called “golden handshake” deals and forces public companies to give shareholders a binding vote on compensation, passed with a landslide victory in March. And another referendum brought to parliament by petition earlier this month—that would ensure a minimum income of $2,800 per month for every worker in the country—has shown widespread support.
Nonetheless, organizers for the 1:12 initiative told Agence France-Presse that it is not the time to get comfortable, as the proposition faces fierce opposition from the wealthy elite and right-leaning voters.
“We’re going to pull out all the stops,” said David Roth, head of the youth wing of Switzerland’s Socialist Party (JUSO), who have organized around the referendum.

Some of those stops include projecting images and campaign messages onto the buildings of major banking institutions and a “Fat Cat of the Week” campaign on the group’s Facebook page—this week featuring UBS’s investment banking division head Andrea Orcel.
As AFP reports:

Orcel’s salary is 194 times higher than that of the lowest-paid UBS employee, they underlined.
The former Bank of America Merrill Lynch executive chairman, previously at Goldman Sachs, also received a 26-million Swiss franc ($29 million) golden handshake when he joined UBS in 2012.

And a 1:12 rally will be held in Zurich on November 2nd, which organizers said is expected to draw a large crowd.

_______________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Source: Common Dreams

The True Cost of Health Care - Healthcare costs 10% of what they charge us!

Can You Guess the 10 Best Countries For Women? Hint: the U.S. Isn’t One of Them

The World Economic Forum released its annual Global Gender Gap Reportfor 2013 measuring gender disparity between men and women around the world…and disappointingly the United States didn’t even make it in the top 20!

The report, which ranks 136 countries, determines its findings across four primary areas including economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, political empowerment and health and survival, ranking the United States 23 ^rd on the list for 2013, HuffPost reported.
Each country out of the 136 is assigned a score between 1 representing total gender equality and 0 depicting inequality, the total score representing the percentage of the gap that has been closed between women and men. This year, the United States received a score of 0.7392, which is actually worse than the score it received the year before when it was ranked 22 ^nd.
According to the report, despite having a near-perfect gender gap in terms of education, we have a serious gender disparity when it comes to politics, with women constituting only 18.3 per cent of the 113 ^th Congress.
So which countries ranked above the United States? Not surprisingly, Scandinavia (known for their kick-ass policies on promoting gender equality) scored extremely high yet again with the top 10 as follows:

1. Iceland
2. Finland
3. Norway
4. Sweden
5. Philippines
6. Ireland
7. New Zealand
8. Denmark
9. Switzerland
10. Nicaragua

Jodie Gummow is a senior fellow and staff writer at AlterNet.

Source: Alternet

ECONOMIC CRISIS: How Derivatives Can Collapse The Global Economy

Q: Have a better response than arrests to 1%’s War Crimes, bank looting, lies?

October 26, 2013

Do you have a better citizen response than demand for arrests of OBVIOUS crimes of US “leadership” centering in war and money?
Now’s the time to voice it, if you care to participate in upgrading a human condition of endless wars, debt, and lies.
Russell Brand interviews and writes for “revolution” in response to a corruptly coordinated political system where it doesn’t matter if the Left or Right arm of one fascist body is elected. He calls for “genuine alternatives,” such as Bucky Fuller’s engineering options for a world that works for everyone with no-one left out (and consider resource-based economics).
Almost three years ago, I wrote Open proposal for US revolution: end unlawful wars, criminal economics, for Americans to lawfully revolve/turn from OBVIOUS crimes of US “leadership” centering in war and money. I reframed this in early 2012 to Why Occupy? A government/economics teacher explains.
My contributions to our lawful turn from 1% crimes focus on three areas:

1. Explain, document, and easily prove how US wars are not even close to lawful; in fact, my colleagues and I are unaware of any published argument to support legality, and welcome any attempts. Importantly, all “reasons” for these wars were known to be false as they were told, following a long history of official war lies sold to Americans and our soldiers. The closest crime to describe causing unlawful attacks on our military is treason.
2. Explain, document, and easily prove that what we use for money is debt (and here) created almost exclusively by privately-owned banks. This “debt supply” can only increase aggregate debt, and can never be repaid without destroying what we use for money. Government commits massive fraud by failing to fully disclose central facts and options about money. The good news is that technical solutions are abundant, beginning with Ben Franklin’s documentation almost 300 years ago how colonial Pennsylvania operated its government through public credit and no taxes.
3. Corporate media, including our textbook publishers, “cover” these crimes through lies of omission and commission. With just a little attention, their “reporting” and “history” are easily seen as propaganda for oligarchs who annually kill millions, harm billions, and loot trillions.

To end these OBVIOUS crimes and lies, I propose that obvious criminal leaders be arrested (and here), whistleblowers brought forward under a Truth & Reconciliation process, and solutions for peace and prosperity initiated.
The arrests will happen after sufficient public “emperor has no clothes” recognition of these crimes and lies. Those in military and law enforcement will quickly enact legal authority to arrest obvious criminals in “leadership” because it’s only ~1% of humanity who reject ideals of truth and justice.
Question: Do you have a better solution than arrests to end OBVIOUS crimes centering in war and money?
If you do, now’s the time for your voice.

Rand Paul Moves To Put Yellen Nomination On Hold

US already third world economy: Says American economist!!

A prominent American economist says the United States has already become a Third World economy as the world superpower continues to offshore its gross domestic product (GDP).“America is in the toilet, and the rest of the world knows it,” he wrote, noting, “More small businesses close, as memberships decline in golf clubs, as more university graduates return home to live with their parents, who are drawing down their savings to live.”http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/10/24/331063/us-already-third-world-economy/

Karen Hudes (WORLD BANK EMPLOYEE) Predicts Lawlessness when U.S. Dollar Loses International Currency Status

Read more at http://investmentwatchblog.com/us-already-third-world-economy-says-american-economist/#3UumXPAPoF0iD2l6.99

Food Stamp Decrease Set For November :(

WASHINGTON -- Next month food stamp benefits will automatically shrink for all 47 million Americans enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Pamela Gwynn of Crawfordsville, Ind., heard about the cut in a letter from the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration. The letter explained that a federal law called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, commonly known as the "stimulus package," had given food stamp recipients a temporary boost in 2009.

"The increased benefits provided by this law are expected to expire on November 1, 2013," the letter said. "Most families will see their benefits decrease in November due to the end of the extra benefits provided by the 2009 law."
Gwynn, 63, said a series of brain surgeries in the late 1990s left her partially deaf and reliant on $731 per month in disability benefits from the Social Security Administration. Her monthly food stamp benefit will go down from $91 to $80. Gwynn did some arithmetic and figured that would leave her 88 cents per meal.
"Eighty-eight cents won't buy anything except a cup of ramen noodles," she said. "They just keep cutting and cutting. Eighty-eight cents -- you cannot even buy a can of tuna for 88 cents."
The Recovery Act's food stamp boost was not supposed to disappear so abruptly. The plan had been to leave the increase in place until inflation caught up through annual adjustments to SNAP benefit levels, which had been expected to happen in 2015. But congressional Democrats essentially raided the cookie jar, using the future planned spending to offset the cost of priority legislation in 2010. They said at the time that they would put the money back before any decrease could take effect, but they have not kept their promise.
The government calculated the food stamp stimulus increase by taking the level of benefits for the U.S. Department Agriculture's "Thrifty" food plan in June of 2008 and increasing it by 13.6 percent. In November, the USDA will reset benefit levels to the Thrifty plan level from last June.
A family of four receiving full benefits will get $36 less, while single households will get $11 less. People receiving the minimum benefit, just $16, will receive $1 less. Nationally, the reduction amounts to $5 billion next year, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. It's the first month-to-month food stamp benefit drop ever.
The decrease is automatic and completely separate from an ongoing debate in Congress over how much SNAP spending should be cut starting next year. Republicans in the House of Representatives want to cut the program by 5 percent, which would result in 3.8 million fewer Americans receiving benefits in 2014. But Senate Democrats are unlikely to go along; if the two chambers can't compromise, benefits will probably continue with no additional cuts.
The November reduction will be the second federal cutback affecting Gwynn's food resources this year. In the spring, across-the-board budget reductions known as "sequestration" trimmed funding for senior nutrition programs supported by the Administration on Aging. Gwynn said she used to receive a hot lunch every weekday.
"They took my lunches away because the sequester cut their budget so much they couldn't afford to pay the driver and they cut back to a once-a-week delivery," Gwynn said. The local agency on aging offered to bring seven frozen meals once per week, but Gwynn said no thanks. "When you live in an apartment you do not have a freezer large enough to hold what you already have in there and seven meals."
Gwynn said she won't starve. She's been getting by with dinner as her only substantial meal.
"I drink a glass of V-8 juice in the morning," she said. "I don't eat breakfast other than that and I don't eat lunch because I just can't afford to buy that much. I will eat a cup of soup if I get hungry."

Jon Stewart Smacks Down CNBC and Fox Anchors For Defending JP Morgan

The Daily Show's Jon Stewart opened up this Wednesday's show by letting the so-called financial analysts over at CNBC and the Fox Business Channel have it for their concern trolling for poor old JP Morgan Chase.
After playing footage of CNBC's money honey, Maria Bartiromo, arguing with Salon's Alex Pareene about how terrible it was that someone was finally going to hold Dimon and his ilk accountable -- and Bartiromo and some of her colleagues claiming that he should have been cut some slack because the government supposedly forced them to buy Bear Stearns -- Stewart treated his audience to some footage of CNBC's Jim Cramer, who apparently had a very different view of that deal at the time.
Stewart wrapped things up after the Cramer footage with a sentiment that's probably shared by a lot of us: "F*ck all y’all."

UPDATE: Bonus video for anyone who hasn't seen it already. Here's Sam Seder and Matt Taibbi taking apart Bartiromo as well.

Taking Your Money Out Of The Bank By Dave Hodges

The Common Sense Show  Dave Hodges   October 23, 2013

The banking industry is absolute chaos as their criminality is being exposed for the entire world to see.

It is now widely known that the derivatives debt is over $1 quadrillion dollars and some of the rank and file in this country are concerned that their bank accounts, 401K’s, IRA’s and pensions will be confiscated by desperate, tier two bankers, who are forestalling the inevitable currency collapse by stealing your money.

You could find yourself in this crowd, if you do not act soon.

---

The time to have taken your money out of the bank was yesterday. There is very little time before the IMF’s plan to steal 10%, for starters, of all bank accounts in Europe.

JP Morgan Chase is banning wire transfers from their bank to foreign banks to prevent American capital flight which will surely happen as America wakes up to the desperate situation that the banks are in.
...
Read More Link On Right

The bank is also prohibiting any cash withdrawals of $50,000 or more. This past Friday, HSBC (America) followed suit. It is highly likely that all 5 megabanks will enact the same policies in the near future.

Although, most Americans are free to leave the country, it is becoming exceedingly difficult for Americans to take their money with them.

Preparing for expatriation is a daunting task and I do not believe that most of us have the time or the ability to get our assets out of the country as well as make detailed plans and implement those plans in advance of the coming crash as we attempt to leave the country. Therefore, most of us are going to be forced to adopt an adaptation strategy.

With all that is available to read on this topic, it is mind boggling regarding how few people are preparing to act to preserve what assets they have remaining by not removing their money from the bank. Because you have put your money in the bank, you no longer own your money.

Taking what was your money out of the bank is no longer a matter of walking up to your friendly teller with a withdrawal slip and the teller cheerfully honors your request and you calmly exit the bank with your money in tow. In fact, your teller is trained to look for certain indicators in any cash withdrawal of any significance.

As you move to withdraw the bulk of your money, there are three federal banking laws that you should be cognizant of, namely, Cash Transaction Report (CTR), a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) and structuring.
 
CTR’s
Federal law requires that the bank file a report based upon any withdrawal or deposit of $10,000 or more on any single given day. The law was designed to put a damper on money laundering, sophisticated counterfeiting and other federal crimes.

To remain in compliance with the law, financial institutions must obtain personal identification, information about the transaction and the social security number of the person conducting the transaction.

Technically, there is no federal law prohibiting the use of large amounts of cash. However, a CTR (Cash Transaction Report) must be filed in ALL cases of cash transaction regardless of the reason underlying the transaction.

Before proceeding with the planed withdrawal of your money, I would strongly suggest that you read the following federal guidelines as it relates to CTR’s as produced by the The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). All the federal regulations contained in this article are elucidated in this series of federal reports.

Structuring and SAR

There will undoubtedly be some geniuses whose math ability will tell them that all they have to do is to withdraw $9,999.99 and the bank and its protector, the federal government will be none the wiser. It is not quite that simple. Here are a few examples of structuring violations that one should be aware of:

1. Joe has obtained $15,000 in cash he obtained from selling his truck. He knows that if he deposits $15,000 in cash, his financial institution will be required to file a CTR.

Instead he deposits $7,500 in cash in the morning with one financial institution employee and comes back to the financial institution later in the day to another employee to deposit the remaining $7,500, hoping to evade the CTR reporting requirement. Joe should have used multiple accounts to conduct this transaction.

2. Sally needs $16,000 in cash to pay for supplies for her arts and crafts business. Sally cashes an $8,000 personal check at a financial institution on a Monday. She subsequently cashes another $8,000 personal check at the bank the following day.

Sally is careful to have cashed the two checks on different days and structured the transactions in an attempt to evade the CTR reporting requirement. Sally should have made irregular deposits on staggered days.

3. A married couple, John and Jane, sell a vehicle for $12,000 in cash. To evade the CTR reporting requirement, John and Jane structure their transactions using different accounts. John deposits $8,000 of that money into his and Jane’s joint account in the morning.

Later that day, Jane deposits $1,500 into the joint account, then $2,500 into her sister’s account, which is later transferred to John and Jane’s joint account at the same bank. Again, John and Jane should have used multiple banks.

The aggregate total of the three transactions totals more than the $10,000 threshold, therefore, a SAR would be filed by the bank and you would be the subject of a federal investigation as all three of the above cases clearly violate the federal banking laws related to structuring.

It is a federal crime to break up transactions into smaller amounts for the purpose of evading the CTR reporting requirement. In these instances, the bank is required to file a SAR which serves to notify the federal government of an individual’s attempt to structure deposits or withdrawals by circumventing the $10,000 reporting requirement.  

Structuring transactions to prevent a CTR from being reported can result in imprisonment for not more than five years and/or a fine of up to $250,000.

If structuring involves more than $100,000 in a twelve month period or is performed while violating another law of the federal government, the penalty is doubled.

Enforcement

Much like the enforcement of our tax laws, the federal government’s enforcement of its banking laws as it relates to CTR’s, SAR’s and subsequent structuring is quite draconian. Civilian asset forfeiture laws come into play. The government can seize your bank accounts while it determines if a crime has been committed.

The government can literally seize your assets in perpetuity without an order of the court. Of course, you could try and sue but you will be up against the deep pockets of the federal government and the case could take years.

By the time your case is decided, the financial banking crisis that you are so desperately trying to avoid by withdrawing your money, could be over.  So, proceed with caution.

Withdrawing Your Money From the Bank

The best way to avoid getting your money caught in the bank in the midst of a bank run would be to not let the lion’s share of your money ever cross the bank.

The simplest way to accomplish this is to prevent any form of deposit from going automatically into your account, as much as it is possible.

---

  Secondly, you need to begin to pay cash for everything. Let’s say that every 30 days, Bob cashes his check at the bank from his work worth $5,000 net pay. Bob leaves just enough in the bank to be able to conduct normal banking business.

 Bob walks out of the bank every month with the majority of the cash from his check. Bob should begin to pay cash for as much as he can, such as eating out, paying the electric bill (pay the bill in person), buying groceries, etc.

When it becomes necessary to make a “big ticket” purchase, Bob could temporarily leave more in the bank to cover the writing of a check.

You would also be wise to open multiple banking accounts ranging from the big five megabanks to your local credit unions. You could withdraw much smaller amounts until the sum total of your accounts is greatly diminished and is in your possession.

To open the accounts, simply write a personal check from your home bank. Of course, in these cases, the bank could hold the check for 15-30 days.

I cannot promise you that if you become the target of federal investigators, that you will not have your every financial move scrutinized and the feds will eventually discover the aggregate patterns of withdrawal.

People who I interviewed told me that they believe that the federal government is in the process of getting the banking computers to “talk” to each other in a way that would reveal structuring, but that technology is not yet online.

If you ever become the target of a federal investigation, do not, under any circumstances, allow yourself to be interviewed by federal officials without an attorney present.

In many cases, people go to jail and pay huge fines, not because they have committed a federal crime, but because federal officials state that they have lied or misled them. And if you do not have an attorney present, it is your word versus the federal government.

Conclusion

In an upside-down world in which the banks legally own your money, getting your money away from these criminal banks has become an art form. I cannot promise you that you will be able to retrieve all of your assets, however, I can promise you that if you do not act, you will lose everything.

Today and tomorrow (10/23 and 10/24) FEMA and DHS are engaged in part two of simulating a cyber terrorist attack upon the banking system. One thousand banks and all 50 governors are involved in this test.

I would strongly suggest that you keep your gas tank filled and you have plenty of cash, food and ammunition on hand. I am not predicting a problem with this test, but it is better to be safe than sorry.

Although personally, I think we have some time to prepare before the currency is collapsed, the dates which have me most concerned are November 13th and 14th which are the dates coinciding with Grid Ex II in which a simulated continental power grid failure will be rehearsed.

This opens a whole can of worms. For example, once you have the bulk of your money out of the bank, what should you replace the cash with? What should you be buying in anticipation of the currency collapse which is looming? These topics and more will be the subject of the next article.


20 thoughts on “How to Take Your Money Out of the Bank Without Going to Prison”

musivick von lunas October 23, 2013 at 6:22 am

 i use electronic transfers to buy into a mutual fund

 i also use checks to buy silver coins from several different companies

 i am going to cross my fingers with the Nov 13-14th GRIDX II operation as i have a sizeable property tax to pay at that due date

 i have tempted to create a money flow sequence so that the data-mining agencies wont red flag me for ~weird~ transactions

   Paula Tuttle October 23, 2013 at 6:35 am          

 Thank you for this article and all you do to help educate the public of the banking scams and how they can secure themselves from them! Great work!!

   CREAKY22 October 23, 2013 at 6:36 am              

 WOULD YOUR MONEY BE SAFER IN A ROTH IRA, SINCE TAXES HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID THERE?

EDITOR’S NOTE: OBAMA WANTS THAT TOO

 
  Pingback: How to Take Your Money Out of the Bank Without Going to Prison | gold is money         

 Kevin October 23, 2013 at 7:16 am         

 I went to my local small town bank last week to cash a check for a completed real estate contract in the amount of 10,350.00……. When I said I was cashing and not depositing she replied she did not think she had that much money..

I did not say a word and just looked at her.. After 60 seconds of me glaring at her she said I might have enough money, brought it out and made me jump through hoops to get it, but I got it and now keep the minimum in my checking account….

   Peter October 23, 2013 at 7:20 am         Hello Everyone,

The above is way too complicated! I left USSA in June 2011 and took with me 35,000 Euro with a cash through those Pedophile goons called TSA from Chicago. In fact, they never asked me if I had more than 10,000 cash. The rest of the money, I put in Capitol One bank.

 I opened a debit account and I can use it anywhere in the world. They charge me 1% transaction fee (currency fee), unlike some of these other criminal banks. The limit was 1,000 dollars per month (around 650 to 700 Euro per month) until I removed my money.

   Walter October 23, 2013 at 7:24 am        

To Dave Hodges, This article is very important, like many of your artilcles. However, the examples are not good. IT does not say what happened, It would be good if you had an example of a person has $20,000.00 and wants to put it into their bank without a ctr. How would they accomplish this, in detail.

 An example that a person has a Retirement account, and they want to remove $50,000.00 how would they do this. The examples leave me in question. As you say, the person should have done something else, but I need hard variables, such as Bank A, and Bank B. Not multiple banks.   Thank you  Walter

 
george October 23, 2013 at 7:26 am                   

 I worked for Bank of America and can verify the truth of what Dave has said. Once the feds get their grubbly little hands on even ONE large transaction or combination-transaction, you are busted out. You MUST begin NOW to get your money, or you’ll be screaming, “Greece! Greece!”

And what about silver and gold? who will be able to make change for you? or buy back your gold and silver, if the dollar crashes? ultimately, one must be a child of the King of kings and Lord of Lords, thru the new birth by the blood of His cross. Then and only then, can you say, “If God is for me, who can be against me?”

Kepano24 October 23, 2013 at 7:37 am  

 One thing NOBODY is saying about pulling money out of the bank….When the economy collapses, people keep saying YOUR MONEY IS WORTHLESS ANYWAYS….. so how is it, telling people the dollar will collapse and then at the same time say take your money out of your back..? any one? answers…

This is like telling people fire and brimstone in church and in Heaven we will be with Jesus, but not telling them “oh by the way after a 1000 yrs of Heaven on earth, God will let satan loose again for the final war…No one seems to read revelations all the way through, not even Steve Quayle…..

Just a thought on why pull money out if it will be worth nothing anyways ?

EDITOR’S NOTE: THE MAJORITY OF FUNDS SHOULD BE COMMITTED TO PURCHASING NECESSITY’S. ONLY A FOOL WILL HANG ON TO CASH

   Pingback: How to Take Your Money Out of the Bank Without Going to Prison      

 george October 23, 2013 at 7:57 am       

 there is another little-known (by the public sheeple) report which all banks use: the Large-Items Report. Every transaction, 5000 smackers and up, goes on this report and is read by ALL officers of each branch of each bank. Makes no diff. which size bank; you will be scrutinized by the banks.

 In my day, we read this report and checked on the items to make sure no fraud, forgery or theft was taking place. Today, the banks are examining these transactions for another reason entirely – to supposedly find out if drug trafficking is occuring, etc. I

In actuality, the banksters are hoping to spot people who want to take their money out of their banks, and then sic your friendly feds onto them, just as Dave has postulated.

Therefore, if possible, take out smaller amounts and deposit smaller amounts, thereby fooling (we hope) the watchers, who are determined to cover their derivative bets by using YOUR money, just as has happened in the lovely little paradise called the Hellenic Republic. And never tell ANYone what you are doing. A secret is a secret only when ONE person has it.

   Pngback: How to Take Your Money Out of the Bank Without Going to Prison | RevolutionRadio.org              

 Oz-land October 23, 2013 at 8:01 am     

 I believe that $10,000 amount was dropped to $5,000 a few years ago. The laddering still applies. Banks are mandated never to reveal if your account is being investigated.

They must report you if you complain about all the regs. Allegedly this is to catch money launderers (LMAO) who wire their deposits into the NY too-big-for-jail cartel.

 Dodd-Frank is a major piece of oligarchical control whose purpose is to consolidate power by putting smaller players out of business by imposing oppressively detailed regs that do not apply to the banksters.

No nations, no private property, no families, no religion, no middle class, no competition… have they missed any of the planks in the commie manifesto?

EDITOR’S NOTE: ACCORDING TO THE LINKED FEDERAL WEBSITE, THE AMOUNT IS $10,000

  Pine 4 Better Daze October 23, 2013 at 8:09 am

 Did any bank file a Suspicious Activity Report when $2.3 trillion turned up missing at the Pentagon the day before 9/11 or when millions from CIA drug smuggling operations are laundered through U.S. banks?? Oh, wait, that’s our criminal federal government doing that so it’s OK!

  
Willard Aztec October 23, 2013 at 8:33 am           

 The lateness of the hour is becoming apparent to many by now but a friend told me, “I understand what you’re saying but it takes a major decision to take money out of a savings account when your wife is against it.”

Well, will she be against it when you open a few cans of food later on that you bought with money that is no longer in the bank?

 This article is worth pondering and if you haven’t done it, tomorrow may be too late. The $10,000 rule has been in place since the late 80s and if you haven’t caught on by now it may be too late for you. There is only one sure way to beat the system:

 Put your faith not in men or their schemes but turn it ALL over to the Lord Jesus Christ, there is no other way. Eventually, all the schemes of man will fail and only He will endure.

   Rebecca Gear October 23, 2013 at 9:49 am       

 This is one of the reasons I do not mind being poor!

   laura m. October 23, 2013 at 10:34 am

 Another idea: Using several banks(not branches of one bank) at a time/ buying food every three days: We use three banks and two incl. jumbo CD’s. We are retired, both on SS, drawing down a 401k and get dividends from blue chip stocks and muni’s. Friends likewise.

On checking accts we keep low amounts in two banks/cr unions and get cash back using either debit cards when buying items in stores to avoid seeing bank tellers as we do not use ATM’s. ATM’s have cameras and it’s like going into the bank anyway.

By splitting up grocery shopping every three days instead of once a week, this gives me more cash back each time I shop.

Another idea mentioned to me was running up credit card/mail orders for preps, etc. then pay it off each month same as withdrawing cash by writing a check to Visa, etc. I’d be glad to hear other ideas from comments made.

Willard: The spouse who pitches a fit if other one wants to take out savings acct is very common I hear.

   DigDeep October 23, 2013 at 10:44 am

 Oz-land: Although the Federal requirement is >$10,000 some banks have instituted a >$5,000 policy. I ran into this at an institution that I used to bank at.

mad mike October 23, 2013 at 11:03 am

 Recently recieved an insurance check from AFLAC drawn on CHASE/J.P. Morgan Bank. The amount was just under 7k, have banked with my bank 15 yrs, they would not cash it. Had to hold it till Nov.1 in my acct, they said.

I had to drive out of state 270 miles to cash the check! Split the amount into two envelopes, placed the cash in my boots and went straight out and bought food and ammunition. Now I own real, tangible commodities. The banks fear this.

That is how you hurt them. And you keep barely the minimum necessary in your account, so little that it costs them more to retain your business than it profits them.

Willard Aztec October 23, 2013 at 5:14 pm           

 We disappeared from the radar some time ago. We put the check in the bank and draw out enough cash as soon as possible and pay cash for everything! I realize that cannot continue forever but for now it works!

If you post on the internet use a pen name, if you make a phone call or send an email be careful not to use “key” words that would cause an automated program to automatically snoop.

Drive an older but reliable car, keep extra gasoline and oil on hand as well as canned foods. By the way if you are short of money you can buy 110 servings of oatmeal for $7 at Sam’s Club, it won’t taste real good after about the 15th meal but it sure beats going hungry and it’s good for you. Consider the horse.

http://thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/10/23/how-to-take-your-money-out-of-the-bank-without-going-to-prison/

(This content is for general information purposes only. All information given is the sole opinion of the provider.   Dinar Recaps does not endorse, support, represent or guarantee the completeness, truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of this information. We only report so you can decide and be prepared )

After JPMorgan $13B Deal, Banks Seek Protections in Future Bailouts

As the U.S. government closes in on a $13 billion settlement with JPMorgan Chase & Co. over its mortgage practices, lawyers specializing in bank mergers are looking for ways to protect their clients from big losses in similar cases in the future.
A big chunk of the record settlement is attributed to bad mortgage loans at Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns – two banks that U.S. financial regulators encouraged JPMorgan to buy during the 2008 financial crisis.
That has triggered discussions among bank merger lawyers about how they can get indemnification clauses into future bailout deals, and obtain greater protection from losses from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which seizes and sells troubled banks.

When the FDIC coordinates the sale of such banks, it often agrees to limit the losses that the acquiring bank may face on troubled assets. It did this, for example, in 2008 to help Citigroup Inc. buy parts of Wachovia Corp., which was ultimately bought without government assistance by Wells Fargo & Co.
One idea that lawyers are discussing is expanding the scope of these loss-sharing agreements with the FDIC to cover potential regulatory action.
“People are talking about what kind of increased insurance against liabilities they can put in place,” said Donald Lamson, a partner at Shearman & Sterling LLP in Washington, D.C. “Banks in general are going to be more leery of going into these kinds of deals.”
The reluctance of banks to buy failed institutions could cause headaches for regulators in future crises. While only 22 banks have failed so far this year, that pales compared with the 140 that succumbed in 2009 and 157 in 2010, a failure rate that stretched FDIC resources.
JPMorgan is expected to finalize its settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice in the coming days. It originally paid rock-bottom prices for Bear and Washington Mutual, forking out only around $3.4 billion for both and becoming the largest U.S. bank. But it has since incurred billions of dollars of legal costs and writedowns linked to both companies.
JPMorgan now complains that it is being unfairly punished for doing a good turn for the government and economy during the crisis.
“It is like buying a home at foreclosure: you know you’re buying at a bargain basement price, but there may be risks,” said Jeffrey Manns, an associate professor at George Washington University Law School. “There is no such thing as a free lunch.”
Lawyers said JPMorgan’s experience is spurring them to try to carve out broader protections for bank bailouts.
“The idea would be to make the language as broad as possible to include regulatory issues and past acts of the predecessor banks so clients are assured they are covered,” said Lawrence Kaplan of Paul Hastings LLP in Washington, D.C., and previously a lawyer for the government’s former Office of Thrift Supervision.
He added that most banks will want to extend loss-sharing arrangements with the FDIC beyond the usual five years.
Mann explained: “Lawyers are known for pessimism and being negative, but they now have to be more so in assessing the risks of potential acquisitions.”
Mitchell Raab, a partner at Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP in New York, said acquiring banks could negotiate a potential reduction in the purchase price if a takeover does not work out as planned.
However, it is difficult for acquirers to fully defend against possible regulatory action arising from the past activity of the banks they buy. Lawyers said any protections they structure will have limitations.
“The FDIC can’t say it will forbid the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission from taking an action against your firm over poor disclosures that were made,” Lamson said.
He said the same holds true for any criminal conduct that the Justice Department or state attorneys general may pursue.
The only way to fully protect clients may be to convince them not to do deals in the first place, some lawyers said.
“If the decision is undertaken to do one of these deals, it should be done in a very careful way,” Lamson said. “But at the end of the day being careful may not be enough.”

The U.S. Debt Ceiling Has Been Suspended

This article was written by Tom Chatham and originally published at Project Chesapeake
When is a debt ceiling not a ceiling? When it has been removed. That is the solution that was enacted on Wednesday night to fund the government for the next 90 days. This will last from Oct. 17, 2013 until Feb. 7, 2014. This has some very dangerous implications for Americans. It means as of right now there is no debt ceiling and the federals can spend as much as they like. With all of the previous spending by DHS, and the impending economic crash that we face in the near future, it is terrifying to think what the federals might buy in the next 90 days that they can use against American citizens.

With this scenario in place the writing is on the wall and foreigners can read it well even if Americans cannot. The dumping of treasuries will likely increase substantially over the next few months as the collapse becomes evident to everyone but Americans. This is the end game and most people don't even know they are in it.

With the debt ceiling removed even temporarily, the government has the ability to overspend and when the ceiling is reinstated in 90 days any new debt over the current limit will not be debatable. The limit will automatically have to be raised to that amount. That is why President Obama answered "no" when asked if there would be a renewed debt debate next year. He knows he can bypass it. When the time comes for the House to raise the debt limit they will either have to raise it to encompass the additional spending or not raise it and possibly trigger a default. Either way the Democrats can blame the Republicans for the additional debt increase or a default.

It could go something like this. The government decides how much extra money they will need until after the elections next year and borrow it now. The money is dispersed into the usual slush funds until needed to avoid any new debt debates before the election. The Republicans will lose the ability to stop uncontrolled government growth next year and the Democrats will deprive them of any debt debates before Nov. This will give the Democrats a big edge in the elections and could allow them to take some seats in the house. Not that changing from one party to the other will change anything, it will just determine how fast we collapse.

By this time next year I suspect the Petrodollar will be on life support if not completely dead and high inflation will be rearing its' ugly head. The governments answer to this will be price controls which will lead to shortages. Then things go downhill fast from there. That's if we actually make it to next fall without a serious incident in the U.S. before then.

These are truly perilous times for the U.S. and everyone should prepare as they deem appropriate. The west line has shifted and we are now on the trailing edge of history. If we are to survive as a nation and prosper again we must learn to operate with a smaller more efficient economy as others before us have done. This will entail a smaller more localized economy with more small producers and a stable medium of exchange. The only alternative is to become a failed third world nation with no future.

When you ask someone why they climbed the mountain some will say, because it's there. I wanted to know if I could do it. It is the same drive that makes people want to win at sports.

Why do preppers prep? What is the point? If something so catastrophic happens that the world is drastically changed or destroyed, why would we want to survive to live anymore?

Dieing is easy. All you have to do is give up and quit. It's living that is so hard. One of the hardest things a person can do is to wake up in the morning and get out of bed when they know the world is stacked against them. So why do it?

There are three types of people in the world. Those that can do, those that are afraid to do, and those that don't know what they should do.

I'm the kind of person that will take the time to hammer out a bent piece of metal even if I don't need it and could easily go buy another one. I like a challenge and I like the feeling of accomplishment when I succeed.

Last year I was working on one of my vehicles when it bent some of the pushrods almost into an S. I could have run down to the parts store and bought new ones but being the cheapskate that I am and loving a challenge, I decided to try to straighten them out. I managed to straighten out 3 but had to buy one new one that was too far gone. They were not expensive but I saw it as a challenge.

About 20 years ago we had a bad winter storm that left several inches of ice on the road. I had to drive 15 miles on these icy roads to get home. About 2 miles from home I rounded a turn and the truck began to slide. My small Chevy 4×4 slid sideways and the front end dropped into a deep ditch until the chassis was touching the ground. I could push up the opposite side of the ditchbank a few inches but could not get enough traction to back out.

A short time later a neighbor came by and a couple of guys tried to help push it out with no success. They said I would need to call a tow truck and offered me a ride. I declined and said I would keep trying. A few minutes after they left I finally stopped and analyzed my situation a little more. I knew I needed to get the front end up and get some traction, but how. I then went into the woods and found a few small logs and threw them behind the wheels. I pushed up the opposite bank a few inches allowing the logs to roll into the bottom of the ditch. When I rolled back the truck pulled itself out of the ditch with little effort.

The point of this story is that I decided I would get it out and would not stop until I had exhausted every possible idea. You don't know what you are capable of unless you try.

I think preppers are willing to go to extremes and prepare not because they fear death or hardship but because they are willing to explore their absolute limits. They want to know if they are capable of overcoming the obstacle just because it's there and they have more fear of walking away not knowing than of trying and failing. Some in business might call it the drive to succeed and others might call it the drive to win.

Everyone has their limits and some will prevail when others fail but in the end, the act of trying and not giving up is what's important. That is what prepping is about to me. If I see a potential obstacle in my future I will try to prepare to overcome it then move on but if I fail and the worst happens I will have a clear conscience. That is what prepping is. Being prepared to face a challenge and giving yourself every chance to overcome it.

When people ridicule those that see potential danger and prepare to overcome it, it is like someone looking at Mt. Everest and saying, oh it's just a little hill no different than all the others we have crossed, and then they proceed to walk up it with no supplies or equipment. Experience is a virtue that preppers relish and others simply scoff at, at their own peril. To a prepper, the future is a Mt. Everest with no visible top that they are prepared to climb.

Why do people prep for catastrophic situations? Because it's there.

Elizabeth Warren to Wall Street Regulators: Put Big Bank CEOs in Jail

Facebook

This past weekend, the Department of Justice slapped a record fine on JPMorgan Chase for packaging and selling the mortgage-backed financial products that helped cause the financial meltdown. But Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wants the administration to know that fines are not enough. On Wednesday, she called on Wall Street regulators to hold all those responsible for the 2008 crisis accountable.
In a letter to the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Officer of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Warren lauded the overseer of the TARP bailout program for cracking down on financial industry players who wasted, stole, or abused the federal emergency funds doled out to banks during the financial crisis, and implied that the three banking regulators should also punish individuals who helped cause the financial meltdown.
Although the budget for TARP's inspector general was "a small fraction of the size of the budgets and staffs at your agencies," Warren pointed out, the program's watchdog has brought criminal charges against nearly 100 senior executives; obtained criminal convictions on 107 defendants, including 51 jail sentences; and suspended or banned 37 people from working in the banking industry.
How about you guys, Warren asked. She called on the Fed, the SEC, and the OCC to provide records on the number of people the agencies have charged criminally and civilly, the number of convictions and prison sentences they have obtained, the number of people banned or suspended from working in the industry, and the total amount of fines leveled against Wall Street ne'er-do-wells.
Warren knows the answer to most of these questions, but wants to shame the agencies into action. Yes, big banks have been forking over billions of dollars in civil settlements for bad behavior in the lead up to the crisis. There have been prosecutions of various smaller mortgage brokers, and some civil charges and settlements against executives who helped cause the crisis. But zero Wall Street CEOs are in jail for bringing down the economy, and no CEOs have faced criminal charges.
Earlier this year, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder seemed to concede that some banks are "too big to jail." But Warren doesn't buy it. "There have been some landmark settlements in recent weeks for which your agencies and others deserve substantial credit," Warren said in the letter. "However, a great deal of work remains to be done to hold institutions and individuals accountable for breaking the rules and to protect consumers and taxpayers from future violations."

25 Stats That Prove That The American Dream Is Being Systematically Destroyed

Source: Michael Snyder, Guest Post

The 25 statistics that you are about to read are solid proof that the middle class in America is being systematically wiped out.  Once upon a time, the United States had the largest and most prosperous middle class in the history of the world.  It seemed like almost everyone owned a home, had a couple of nice vehicles and could provide a very comfortable lifestyle for their families.  Sadly, that has all changed.  In America today, prices are rising at a very brisk pace but incomes are not.  There aren’t nearly enough jobs for everyone anymore, and most of the jobs that are being “created” are jobs that pay very little.  The largest employer in America is Wal-Mart, and the second largest employer is actually a temp agency (Kelly Services).  In a desperate attempt to make ends meet, millions of American families endlessly pile up more debt, and millions of other American families find themselves forced to turn to the government for help.  At this point, more than 49 percent of all Americans receive benefits from the federal government each month.  The percentage of Americans that cannot financially take care of themselves is rising every single year, and our independence is being whittled away as we become increasingly dependent on the government.  Unfortunately, our politicians continue to stand aside and do nothing as our jobs are shipped overseas, inflation steals our purchasing power and the middle class continues to shrink.  The following are 25 stats that prove that the American Dream is being systematically destroyed…

1. According to the most recent numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau, 49.2 percent of all Americans are receiving benefits from at least one government program.
2. The U.S. government has spent an astounding 3.7 trillion dollars on welfare programs over the past five years.
3. An increasing number of employers are encouraging their low wage employees to supplement their wages by going on government welfare programs.  For example, McDonald’s workers that need help making ends meet are being instructed to go on food stamps…

McDonald’s workers who are unable to pay their bills or stay above the poverty line should find help from food pantries or enlist in government benefit programs instead of seeking higher wages, according to a company resource line meant to help employees.
Nancy Salgado has worked for the fast-food corporation for over 10 years yet still earns $8.25 an hour, barely more than the $7.25 federal minimum wage. With help from the worker’s rights group Low Pay Is Not Ok, she phoned the company’s employee hotline, known as McResource, attempting to find some answers on how to improve her situation.
A recording of the call was made available to CNN, which reported that Salgado asked the helpline operator multiple questions regarding how McDonalds would help her pay her heating bill, buy groceries, and whether she could afford to help pay for her sister’s medical treatment.
Despite never asking how much money Salgado earned per hour or asking how many hours a week she worked, the McDonalds representative said she “definitely should be able to qualify for both food stamps and heating assistance.”

4. Total consumer credit has risen by a whopping 22 percent over the past three years.
5. Student loans are up by an astounding 61 percent over the past three years.
6. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, median household income in the United States has fallen for five years in a row.
7. Right now the middle class is taking home a smaller share of the overall income pie than has ever been recorded before.
8. Ordinary Americans are being priced out of the housing market.  Today, nearly half of all home purchases are all-cash deals.
9. The homeownership rate in the United States is now at the lowest level it has been in nearly 18 years.
10. The gap between the rich and the poor in the United States is at an all-time record high.
11. U.S. families that have a head of household that is under the age of 30 have a poverty rate of 37 percent.
12. Every single day, thousands of Americans are receiving letters in the mail informing them that their old health insurance policies have been canceled.  According to a recent Kaiser Health News article, some companies have already sent out hundreds of thousands of cancellation notices…

Florida Blue, for example, is terminating about 300,000 policies, about 80 percent of its individual policies in the state. Kaiser Permanente in California has sent notices to 160,000 people – about half of its individual business in the state.  Insurer Highmark in Pittsburgh is dropping about 20 percent of its individual market customers, while Independence Blue Cross, the major insurer in Philadelphia, is dropping about 45 percent.

13. Those that are losing their current health insurance policies will have to replace them with new policies that are often much more expensive.  According to health policy expert Bob Laszewski, 16 million people could ultimately have their health insurance policies canceled because of Obamacare…

The U.S. individual health insurance market currently totals about 19 million people. Because the Obama administration’s regulations on grandfathering existing plans were so stringent about 85% of those, 16 million, are not grandfathered and must comply with Obamacare at their next renewal. The rules are very complex. For example, if you had an individual plan in March of 2010 when the law was passed and you only increased the deductible from $1,000 to $1,500 in the years since, your plan has lost its grandfather status and it will no longer be available to you when it would have renewed in 2014.
These 16 million people are now receiving letters from their carriers saying they are losing their current coverage and must re-enroll in order to avoid a break in coverage and comply with the new health law’s benefit mandates––the vast majority by January 1. Most of these will be seeing some pretty big rate increases.

14. Back in 1999, 64.1 percent of all Americans were covered by employment-based health insurance.  Today, only 54.9 percent of all Americans are covered by employment-based health insurance.
15. More Americans than ever find themselves forced to turn to the government for help with health care.  At this point, 82.4 million Americans live in a home where at least one person is enrolled in the Medicaid program.
16. The U.S. labor force participation rate is at a 35 year low.
17. Only 47 percent of all adults in America have a full-time job at this point.
18. It is hard to believe, but in America today one out of every ten jobs is now filled by a temp agency.
19. Approximately one out of every four part-time workers in America is living below the poverty line.
20. After accounting for inflation, right now 40 percent of all U.S. workers are making less than what a full-time minimum wage worker made back in 1968.
21. Today, the United States actually has a higher percentage of workers doing low wage work than any other major industrialized nation does.
22. At this point, almost half of all public school students in America come from low income homes.
23. The number of Americans on food stamps has grown from 17 million in the year 2000 to more than 47 million today.
24. Right now, one out of every five households in the United States is on food stamps.

25. An increasing number of Americans do not even believe that they have a pleasant retirement to look forward to.  One recent survey found that the percentage of middle class Americans that “plan to work until they die” is now higher than ever.

McDonald’s helpline to employee: Go on food stamps

Topics: food stamps ♦ mcdonalds

 The protest movement for higher wages for fast food workers has been simmering for several months now, in the form of employee walkouts and street rallies in several major US cities. Now, advocates have zeroed in on another group they say is suffering financially from fast food chains’ corporate stinginess: the American taxpayer.

The charge is that McDonald’s and other fast food giants who pay their workers less than what many consider a "living wage" are letting taxpayers pick up the slack in the form of public assistance. A video released Wednesday by the labor advocacy group Low Pay is Not Ok drives the point home. In it, Nancy Salgado, a 10-year McDonald’s employee in Chicago and a mother of two, calls a worker helpline called McResources, purportedly set up to help employees with financial issues. During the call, which the group recorded and edited, the operator suggests that Ms. Salgado apply for food stamps and Medicaid, giving her numbers in the Chicago area to call.

“McDonald’s doesn’t want to pay its workers more. It wants you to pay its workers more,” text at the end of the video read.

McDonald’s refuted the video’s contents in a statement Wednesday, calling it “not an accurate portrayal of the resource line,” and “very obviously” edited.  But the full 14-minute call was made available to reporters, and while the operator did tell Salgado that her franchise hadn’t signed up for full McResource services, she did give her the information that the edited video claims.

What’s more, the unedited call does nothing to refute the concept of fast food chains underpaying their workers as a hefty public burden, a notion that is gathering steam with a small but growing number of advocacy groups, economists, and policymakers.

RECOMMENDED: Monitor Frontier Markets Free Trial. Intelligent analysis on events in frontier/emerging countries.

The video’s release comes a week after economists at the University of California Berkeley and the University of Illinois released a study finding that fast food workers in the US draw nearly $7 billion annually in taxpayer-funded federal aid, in the form of food stamps ($1 billion), Medicaid ($3.9 billion), and earned income tax credits ($1.9 billion). More than half of the 1.8 million “core” fast food workers who work at least 11 hours per week and 28 percent of those who work full time rely on some form of public assistance, according to the study.

“Low wages paid by employers in the fast-food industry create especially acute problems for the families of workers in this industry,” the study’s introduction reads. “Median pay for core front-line fast-food jobs is $8.69 an hour, with many jobs paying at or near the minimum wage. Benefits are also scarce … and many of the families of fast-food workers must rely on taxpayer-funded safety net programs to make ends meet.”

The fight to improve the lot of low-wage workers in both the food service and retail sector has been chugging along since at least last year, when a group of Wal-Mart workers threatened to strike on Black Friday, the biggest shopping day of the year. Some workers at McDonald’s, Wendy’s, and other major fast food chains went on strike in late August, demanding health benefits and a living wage.

Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts has even taken up the issue of fair worker, arguing in a March Senate hearing that it would only cost McDonalds four cents more per meal to provide a $10.10 minimum wage to all of its workers.

But the focus on the tax aspect of the inequity is new, and it’s a shift with the potential to give this particular protest movement staying power, argues David S. Meyer, a professor of sociology and political science at the University of California in Irvine who studies large protest movements. Still, he doubts that it would be enough to affect a policy change on its own. “Are the people who are not making enough money at McDonald’s enough to support a political campaign? Probably not. That’s certainly not there,” he says.

Another issue: McDonald's didn’t become the biggest restaurant chain in the world without a successful business model. “It exists to sell food cheap,” Meyer points out. “And if you pay people $15 an hour, it won’t be as cheap. And they would be crazy to pay people much more than their competitors.”

For the movement to affect change, he argues it would have to strike a chord with a powerful enough group of people, or capitalize on the right news story. “The antinuclear movement hung around for years, and then Three Mile Island happened and made the whole thing bigger,” he says. “It just takes the right opportunity.”

Saudis Anger with US Signals Dollar Sell-Off, NSA Spying Hurts America Abroad, More Banker Fraud

http://usawatchdog.com/weekly-news-wr… - The Saudis are outraged over how the U.S. is handling the Syrian crisis. The Kingdom is also angry at America’s increasingly cozy relations with Iran. The Saudis are saying a “major shift” is coming in U.S./Saudi relations. This is very big trouble for the U.S. dollar. The NSA even hacked the cell phone of Angela Merkel, the newly re-elected leader of Germany. The NSA is single handedly turning allies into enemies! This, too, is extremely dollar negative. The fraud the banks are committing just keeps piling up with zero criminal prosecutions. Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com as he covers these stories and more in the Weekly News Wrap-Up.

Read more at http://investmentwatchblog.com/saudis-anger-with-us-signals-dollar-sell-off-nsa-spying-hurts-america-abroad-more-banker-fraud/#5q2OYlg7VDemThGL.99

Greg Mannarino: High Frequency Trading will Continue to Dominate the Market

Wall st for Main St interviewed former Wall Street trader, Greg Mannarino. In this podcast, we discussed the impact HFT is having the market and if it will have a negative impact on investors in the future. Also, we also brought up technical analysis and how it can be a very useful tool if used correctly. Plus much more!

Read more at http://investmentwatchblog.com/greg-mannarino-high-frequency-trading-will-continue-to-dominate-the-market/#01zgHsdycCoTMpZb.99

IMF Pushes Plan to Plunder Global Wealth

Source: thenewamerican.com

A controversial report released this month by the International Monetary Fund outlines schemes to have big-spending governments with out-of-control debts plunder humanity’s wealth using a mix of much higher taxes and outright confiscation. The goal: Prop up Big Government. Because people and their assets are generally mobile, the radical IMF document, dubbed “Taxing Times,” also proposes measures to prevent them from escaping before they can be fleeced. Of course, the real problems — debt-based fiat currency, lawless bank bailouts, and a cartel-run monetary system — are virtually ignored.

Pointing to absurd and rising levels of government debt, as well as increasing income inequality, the IMF document suggests there are few remaining options for desperate policymakers to explore. Two that are mentioned include “repudiating public debt” — in other words, defaulting on government bonds — or “inflating it away” by having privately owned central banks conjure even more gargantuan amounts of fiat currency into existence at interest. Both of those plots, of course, would still represent a massive transfer of wealth.
However, even though it hides behind the passive voice, the IMF preference for dealing with the debt problems appears to be simply confiscating the wealth more directly. “The sharp deterioration of the public finances in many countries has revived interest in a capital levy, a one-off tax on private wealth, as an exceptional measure to restore debt sustainability,” the report claims. “The appeal is that such a tax, if it is implemented before avoidance is possible, and there is a belief that it will never be repeated, does not distort behavior (and may be seen by some as fair).”
Reducing government debt ratios to “pre-crisis levels” seen at the end of 2007 — before the multi-trillion-dollar banker bailouts and ramping up of the lawless currency printing at central banks — will require “sizeable” tax rates, the IMF continues. Citing a sample of 15 euro-area nations, the report claims that all households with positive net wealth — anyone with more assets than debt, in essence — would have to surrender about 10 percent of it. Because many people who lived responsibly and saved would try to avoid the looting of their wealth, drastic measures must be considered to stop them.
“There is a surprisingly large amount of experience to draw on, as such levies were widely adopted in Europe after World War I and in Germany and Japan after World War II,” the IMF report notes. “This experience suggests that more notable than any loss of credibility was a simple failure to achieve debt reduction, largely because the delay in introduction gave space for extensive avoidance and capital flight, in turn spurring inflation [sic].”
By proposing the outright confiscation of middle-class wealth, analysts say the IMF is essentially acknowledging that simply looting “the rich” will not be enough to even restore government debt to “sustainable” levels. Still, the non-establishment “rich” would face by far the most ferocious assaults on their assets under the schemes outlined in the radical IMF report, which was promptly celebrated by Big Government-supporting politicians.
Noting that financial wealth and people are mobile, the document suggests that there “may be a case” for confiscating varying amounts of wealth using various means — all depending on how easy it would be for people to protect the assets in question from legalized looting. “Substantial progress likely requires enhanced international cooperation to make it harder for the very well-off to evade taxation by placing funds elsewhere,” the report says matter-of-factly.
Taxes on the “rich” of around 60 percent to 70 percent, according to the IMF, would likely be the rate at which the most plunder could be extracted for desperate governments. “A revenue-maximizing approach to taxing the rich effectively puts a weight of zero on their well-being,” the report explains, calling that notion “contentious.” “If one attaches less weight to those with the highest incomes, the vote would be to increase the top marginal rate.”
Private companies that try to reduce their already-crushing tax burdens using “tax planning schemes,” as the report calls them, are also in the IMF crosshairs for increased wealth confiscation. In a section headlined “Tricks of the Trade,” for example, the document blasts business efforts to provide services directly from “low-tax jurisdictions” as “abusive.”
In essence, the IMF and other taxpayer-funded international institutions hope to see a stronger global regulatory regime to ensure maximum wealth extraction via corporate taxation, too. “The chance to review international tax architecture seems to come about once a century; the fundamental issues should not be ducked,” the report argues.
The devastating consequences of squandering ever-greater amounts of productive capital on government programs, of course, are largely overlooked. Meanwhile, the unspoken assumption underpinning the radical ideas is essentially that companies exist to produce wealth for governments to spend — rather than value for shareholders and consumers as has traditionally been the case.
Looking past the bureaucratic language, the IMF caveats, its effort to hide behind the passive voice, and the thinly disguised attempt to make the heist sound palatable to the public because not everyone would be fleeced just yet, the message becomes clear. What the IMF is really saying is that the proposed massive confiscation of wealth must be adopted quickly and quietly — before people have a chance escape it.
Among other schemes discussed in the report is “harmonizing” taxes across jurisdictions, a longtime globalist goal pushed by more than a few establishment-run international institutions. To ensure that governments can extract as much wealth as possible from the productive sector of the economy, more cooperation between them is supposedly needed to eliminate tax competition among jurisdictions. After all, if one government sets lower tax rates to attract businesses and capital, other regimes are being deprived of what the IMF appears to believe is rightfully theirs to seize.
While the report has largely escaped the attention of the establishment media, analysts who dug into it were shocked. “It may all sound far-fetched to you now, and most people will still cling on to the idea that ‘they wouldn’t do such a thing’,” noted Raul Meijer in an analysis posted on Market Oracle, suggesting that the Cyprus heist would likely serve as a “blueprint” for future looting — as EU officials promised. “But that the IMF proposes it at all, and so openly, suggests that they might, if only they can figure out how.”
Writing in Forbes, meanwhile, Competitive Enterprise Institute Fellow Bill Frezza highlighted three major takeaways from the report. The first point is that IMF economists understand that even if 100 percent of assets belonging to the “1 percent” were expropriated, there would not be enough to fund today’s governments. “That means that all households with positive net wealth — everyone with retirement savings or home equity — would have their assets plundered under the IMF’s formulation,” Frezza explained.
The second major takeaway, he continued, is that such a “repudiation of private property” would still not be enough to pay off the debts of Western governments or to fund their budgets going forward. Instead, it would merely “restore debt sustainability,” as the IMF put it, allowing governments to keep borrowing until the next crisis strikes — “for which stronger measures will be required, of course.”
Lastly, Frezza explained, if the political class fails to “muster the courage to engage in this kind of wholesale robbery,” the only alternatives offered by the IMF were debt repudiation or hyperinflation. “Structural reform proposals for the Ponzi-scheme entitlement programs that are bankrupting us are nowhere to be seen,” he added.
Concluding, Frezza painted a dire picture of what the future may hold if the would-be looters are not restrained. “Yes, this is where the bankruptcy of the modern entitlement state is taking us — capital controls and exit restrictions so the proverbial four wolves and a lamb can vote on what’s for dinner,” he wrote. “That’s the only way to keep citizens worried about ending up on the menu from voting with their feet.”
In another devastating analysis of the latest IMF report, which was released in mid-October, Ryan Bourne, head of economic research at the Centre for Policy Studies, blasted it for being filled with “left wing” ideas. “The IMF is playing with fire by giving intellectual backing to punitive taxation,” he said. “Underlying these policies is an ideological assumption that wealth is a collective resource, with governments the benevolent seekers of the common good, whose ability to provide services is undermined by an eroding tax base…. These policies should be anathema to anyone valuing individual freedom, growth and long-term fiscal responsibility.”
For IMF boss Christine Lagarde, however, what the would-be global wealth confiscators are demanding is simply part of formulating a “just” fiscal policy. “It’s clearly something finance ministers are interested in, it’s something that is necessary for the right balance of public finances,” the former French finance boss was quoted as saying during a panel discussion this month. “There are lot[s] of wasted opportunities.”
Of course, the IMF report glosses over the fact that the overwhelming majority of policy changes among advanced economies in recent years went in the direction of tax increases. It also ignored the screaming gorilla in the room: the flawed monetary system and the ludicrous government spending spree at the root of the financial crisis and the ongoing economic problems plaguing the world.
There may be good explanations for that. Despite receiving generous taxpayer-funded salaries and perks, for example, IMF bureaucrats do not pay the exorbitant income taxes they are demanding for everyone else. Meanwhile, the controversial global institution has already been playing a key role in recent heists — with the confiscation of people’s savings in Cyprus among the most stunning examples.
Even more important, perhaps, is the fact that the IMF is being openly groomed to serve as a global central bank in charge of a planetary currency. It already issues the proto-global currency known as Special Drawing Rights, but the establishment has much bigger plans in mind, as The New American magazine has documented extensively. If liberty, prosperity, and national sovereignty are to be preserved, the radical looting schemes advanced by the IMF and other planetary institutions must be resisted in favor of real reforms.
Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com.