Re: Leaving the Country

[frissell@panix.com (Duncan Frissell)]

At 10:24 AM 7/19/94 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote:

>Precisely! For those of us whose assets are already "visible," in the
>form of real estate or stock or the like, the prescripions of some on
>this list to "ignore them and they'll be powerless" (a paraphrase of
>this scofflaw approach) is not at all persuasive.

Tim, you have the *easiest* situation not the hardest.  The hardest
situation is a high-income professional in a licensed profession who has to
work and can't really move.  Since you are in the "great army of the
unemployed," you can move easily and your assets can be fairly easily
converted to cash.  You might lose on your real property (depending on when
you bought) but that has always been the downside of property.

Marc Rich certainly earned a lot of money in a reasonably conventional way
and is living comfortably in Switzerland.  Switzerland is lovely this (or
any other) time of year.  Proof:

http://martigny.ai.mit.edu/photos/photo_album.html      - Photos of Swizerland

I know you like the Bay Area (as do I) but the net is there in Switzerland
and the interface improves from year to year.  If you want to do things
strictly legally, expatriate, secure a second citizenship, renounce your US
citizenship, wait ten years, and you'll be able to visit the US for up to
180 days a year.  You could take this step given your situation but I know
it can be a big one.  Consider though if your US citizenship is worth so
many $thousands/year plus a hefty chunk if you die (extropians isn't the
same without you).

One can always take small steps the first one of which should be to
internationalize your investments and yourself.  If you practice living
"outside the jurisdiction" you might find that you like it.  I know you like
the Bay Area (as do I) but the net is there in Switzerland and the interface
improves from year to year.  I'm not advocationg a particular course here
just pointing out possibilities.

The best way for an ordinary working stiff to minimize the tax consequences
of his earnings is to work on a contract basis so he has no investment in a
particular asignment and his job cannot be used to control him.

>Having been invited in to "chat" with my regional IRS officials in San
>Jose on a couple of occasions, and seeing my stock broker's wonderful
>computerized statements being forwarded to these same folks, I don't
>hold out much hope for escaping.

When the IRS knocked on the gate of Heinlein's place at 5000 Bonny Doone
Road (or was that 26000?) above Santa Cruz, he told them to get lost and
write to his attorney.

>Now I suppose some might say this is my fault, for not having acquired
>the assets in a foreign tax haven like the Cayman Islands, or not
>having lived my life by leasing my cars, only renting houses, etc.
>These were not options. 

It's not too late.

>While it is certainly true than I can easily hide modest amounts of
>assets, hiding large amounts is usually a one-way street. That is, the
>legal and jurisdictional repercussions have to be very carefully
>considered, as they can't be reversed once taken.

Mighty oaks from little acorns grow.  The habitual practice of disobedience
in small things helps you disobey in the large things when your life may
depend on it.

>Maybe they exist. I'm sure some people have hidden assets from the tax
>collector and still lived in the U.S. or other high tax rate states.

Those who become PTs often live (serialy) in high tax states with perfect
legallity:

ftp://furmint.nectar.cs.cmu.edu/security/perpetual-traveler.html

>But I'm not at all convinced by arguments that because some people
>have piled up unpaid traffic tickets, or have no assets to seize, and
>are hence "judgement proof," that this helps me or anyone else in my
>position (a bunch of my Silicon Valley friends, concretely enough).

It is not a matter of tax planning but a matter of psychology.  They have
convinced you to manage your own oppression because it is cheaper and easier
if you do it than if they do it.  They have pushed all your primate buttons
employing techniques that they and their "ancestors in oppression" developed
even before the invention of agriculture.

It is possible to reprogram yourself to disobedience.  I am not particularly
a "tough guy."  On a day-to-day basis I'm reasonably chicken.  But their
culture of oppression infuriates me more than anything.  I can use that fury
to turn down the job of self-jailer that they offer to each of us.

I may suffer from actual oppression from time to time but it won't come from
*me*.  They'll have to spend actual resources.  It will cost them big bucks
for nothing.  Those who *have* met me know that facing my mouth and taking
the abuse therefrom will not be fun.  (It really pisses people off when you
call them copraphagic cretins and they know they've been insulted but they
don't know exactly what you've said.)

Let me give you an example of self-oppression and the ease of resistence in
a less threatening realm.  It is common these days to assign employees to
re-education and self-crticism sessions to cure the modern sins of racism,
sexism, bigotry, and homophobia.  Like the Chinese techniques from which
they were derived, these sessions count on the "sinner" listing all his many
sins and purging them by begging the community for forgivness.  

As a contractor, I am unlikely to even have the opportunity to experience
one of these things but I pity the poor "facilitator" assigned to re-educate
me.  They might have a hard time handling: "Since you, yourself, have
discriminated on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, age, alienage,
previous condition of servitude, sexual or affectional preference, handicap,
marital status, and veteran status in the selection of friends and sexual
partners, you have a whole hell of a lot of nerve telling me that I can't do
the same thing in *my* associations."

>I'm sure the judgement-proofing Duncan Frissell talks about has worked
>for him, in his situation, but I've seen no convincing way to get from
>"here" to "there" in a way that I am remotely comfortable with.

We are still in the Rev 0.99a Alpha testing stage.  The interface is a bit
rough and since it's a Windows app we do have "General Protection Fault"
problems.  When you're out on the "bleeding edge" of technology, you
sometimes bleed.

Once enough people notice that they are free, it will be like Checkpoint
Charlie at 2200 hrs (+1) on 09 November 1989.  You know how it is.  You
remove a cage from around a zoo animal and it takes him a while to notice he
can leave.  He will continue to pace his old path until he discovers his
freedom.

>I'd suggest that if Duncan really knows a way to do this--one that
>takes into account people's _current situations_, as opposed to
>suggesting that they should have chosen a different path in the
>past--then he should have no problem earning a million dollars a year
>as a tax consultant.

I don't know where you got the idea that I have focused on people's past
situations in my analysis.  Since you have day-to-day control of your assets 
and your own time, you can change your social arrangements whenever you like.
I realize that friction exists but I am talking options not mandates.  No
universal coverage here.  My problem with conventional analysis of tax,
investment, and life strategies is that it ignores the full range of
possibilities.  

Since individual human power and range of choices are both increasing,
people should at least be made aware of what can be done.  They need some
options to blind obedience. 

>Not having had the pleasure of meeting Duncan, I can't judge whether
>he's now earning rates like this. (If so, congratulations--and give me a
>call and I'll hire you. If not, why not?)

What I try and do is give people the sort of analysis that they would get
from a lawyer or an accountant if that lawyer or accountant were willing to
treat government as just another entity with no magic status.  A
matter-of-fact approach.  I also direct people to nuts-and-bolts
practitioners (say Ron Rudman in Denver for a Foreign Asset Protection
Trust) if they decide they would like to take some particular action.

The hardest thing to find is an advisor who doesn't have a conflict of
interest (who doesn't serve the state in addition to serving you).

DCF

"Can it ever by moral for the group to do something which is immoral for a
*member* of that group to do?"