Start the conversation
Comment on This Story
Or to contact Money Morning Customer Service, click here.
"You never let a serious crisis go to waste... It's an opportunity to do things you could not do before." -Rahm Emanuel
The once unthinkable is quickly becoming probable.
At some point in the next few years, your assets could well become the target of a "Supertax" as high as 17%.
Last week, we talked about the need to buy "out of print" assets to protect our wealth from brazen government seizures.
I explained that quantitative easing (QE) was likely to get bigger, not smaller, and that you needed to become your own central bank.
The truth is, the writing's already on the wall. We've seen it happen.
Cyprus's "bail-in" cost numerous bank depositors more than 47% of their capital.
Poland's "pension reform" saw private pensions raided to help lower the government's debt-to-GDP ratio.
And Spain plundered its Social Security Reserve Fund to keep buying its own risky debt, when no one else would.
Dangerous precedents are being set, with chilling regularity.
More than ever, you need to be prepared...
Distraction Could Cost You
The media have attempted to distract us with "news" of the National Security Agency's "gathering" of all the world's phone calls and emails, and the endless "hiccups" with Obamacare.
All the while, something much more serious and insidious has been taking place.
In its October Fiscal Monitor Report, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has quietly set the stage for what could eventually be a European, or perhaps even worldwide, "Supertax."
Think I'm kidding?
Here's what they had to say, and I quote:
"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 [emphasis added]. 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)."
Done throwing up? The report goes on:
"The conditions for success are strong, but also need to be weighed against the risks of the alternatives, which include repudiating public debt or inflating it away."
Translation: We think we could pull this off, but we need to consider the alternatives: debt default, or inflation/hyperinflation.
Clearly, they're not going to go for debt default, as it would lead to a depression. No central banker in power today would ever get the leeway to try that. Besides, the 1930s were not much fun. Come to think of it, neither were the early 1940s.
Nor are they convinced that the current attempt - inflation through mega-printing as the path of least resistance - is going to work. But that certainly hasn't stopped them from trying harder and harder, especially Japan.
So like any good central planner, they've been hatching a backup plan - one that involves taking a serious chunk of your hard-earned assets.
Will this happen here? I honestly don't know.
What I do know is no one's dumb enough to believe this would be an "exceptional, one-off" tax.
A move like this will only buy governments some time, so they can go right back to borrow-spend-print. Eventually, they'll be back for more.
If it happens anywhere, you're going to hear about it everywhere. Tiny Cyprus was considered about as insignificant a place as any, ideal for "testing the waters." Yet news of its "bail-in" was plastered everywhere. If the next target is larger, the uncertainty will be massive, and the aftershocks will be felt far, far away.
So what can you do about it?
Put Your Wealth Out of Their Reach
I recommend buying "out of print" hard assets. This way, you can put as much distance as possible between your wealth and the government that would seize it - or the central bank that would debase it.
Consider metals, both precious and nonprecious. Buy palladium , platinum, gold, silver, aluminum, and iron ore.
Invest in real estate, local and foreign; hold physical cash; and own assets internationally.
This is serious.
The IMF's October Fiscal Monitor Report goes so far as to consider (in print, no less) what, if any, weight to give to people's level of wealth. They conclude that it's probably best to tax the rich at a higher rate - even if it's contentious - since they are few, and it's more efficient.
Remember, the IMF were the ones who, together with the European Central Bank, went in and "rescued" Cyprus - and before that Greece, Portugal, Ireland, and Iceland. And we all know how well that went. Trailing close behind are Italy and Spain - not exactly the healthiest economies either, but whose sheer size makes them financial landmines.
My sense is that the closer we get to the next crisis - sovereign debt, banking, currency, take your pick - the more weight the IMF will carry because they are the ultimate "lender of last resort."
And no one, it seems, ever wants to default... at any cost.
Thank you for the article – chilling stuff indeed!
ROBIN HOOD
The scary truth is nobody knows and nobody is in control either. If the big-wig bankers or government officials panic (that their careers are on the line), then almost anything could happen. Eventually, our huge debts will smother everybody and everything as the government taxes or takes (equal or) most all private wealth. They will probably do the easiest pickings first. So, yes, if you have 10 million dollars then "taxing the rich" (a minority) but not the smaller accounts, would buy some votes. First, the richest among us must be vilified in public. Then nobody will object to a "one-off" wealth tax on people they don't like anyway.
Any of you democrat-liberals out there–listen up! When Rahm Emanuel made that statement, what he meant was that during a crisis a person who is normally a freedom-loving independent person is vulnerable. A good American who takes care of his and his own is temporarily knocked to his knees by some unforeseen event, or crisis, and at that point HE IS WILLING TO GIVE UP SOME OF HIS FREEDOM FOR SOME HELP. A hand up, temporary assistance. What ol' Rahm sees is a way to convert a strong independent freedom-loving American into a groveling dependant on the government who will be forever needy to the free stuff that these liberals will hand out from the government treasury. This is not really designed to help the people, but to assure future votes and keep themselves in power. How can a politician really be working for the people's well-being when they, deep down inside, have that philosophy in their heads. "Wait for some disaster, natural or created, then step in and take people's freedom away from them. Something that an independent loyal American would never give up, if not for this crisis.
Remember, Rahm Emanuel was Obama's chief of staff, his first hire, his right-hand man. Both these guys have one goal in mind, and it's not to create more free Americans. No, by Rahm's statement we know that their goal is to rob strong Americans of their freedom and change them into clinging, dependent groveling government serfs who will do anything for their little handout. WE MUST GET THESE TYPES OUT OF OUR GOVERNMENT! They speak of "helping the people," but now we know their real goals. It is all about keeping themselves in power, to hell with the people's well-being. VOTE THEM OUT!!!
Do you mean "democrat-liberals" like George W. Bush was when he (succeeded) in ramming the USA PATRIOT Act down out throats?
Wake up and pull your head out of your backside!
Yes, and about Obama who signed the Patriot Act renewal TWICE!
Baby Bush paved the way for ObaMao in many ways–this is NOT trad. partisan Politics! People that see the evil in O don't see it in Bush and vice versa
NEW WORLD ORDER (NWO)
Its true that George W. Bush set us up for Obama, that much seems all too obvious. The reality is the U.S. BANKERS who control global finance are behind both political parties and play one against the other. Actually, its the voters who get played by the elite's media lapdogs over and over as "they" couch everything in simple, childlike, black and white terms such as Democrat vs. Republican, Liberal vs. Conservative, Secular vs. "Religious". This is the way the American people view politics and public policy.
You mean the commie/fascist Obammie who spied on 300 million people and hasn't been impeached while Nixon got impeached for spying on two rooms?
Indeed, the liberals want everyone a grovelling slave dependent on the taxpayer so they can control you. A perfect recipe for the destruction of society.
The IMF does not tax us; the U.S. Congress does. Mr. Krauth's job is to hype precious metals, and he is doing a good job of it. And, oh yeah, the United Nations is going to take your guns too.
Wake up Jim–Kerry and O just signed the UN Int'l gun control Treaty–up to Senate to refuse…and Congress prettymuch do what Rocky and the banksters tell them incl. NAFTA, TPP just now and other secret trade agreements that get foisted on them without opportunity for amendments and passed wo reading them just like O-care. And O grabs legislative powers and spends $$ wo Congress or House approval. When did House authorize aid to Egypt?
Thank you, Peter Krauth. I've been wondering when somebody was going to sound this horn. I'm expecting the 17% super tax to come right after the IMF decides to "help" with "refinancing" and "restructuring" our economy, the way they did for all the emerging economies that are now dead, and the ones above you mentioned. They will come at the invitation of the Fed and a few others on the bankster list.
Here's my worry: what is to stop these monsters from grabbing hard assets? Homes get taken for non-payment of taxes….
No one, and no asset, is ever safe from a corrupt government. Ever. The only solution is to make government as small as possible, at every level. Smaller local government. Smaller state government. And a smaller federal government – by 50%, at least.
Remember, "A government that is big enough to give you everything, is big enough to take everything from you."
Since when did precious/non-precious metals and real estate not become assets? Try telling the tax man that when your estate is settled upon your death and that because some assets are overseas they are not part of your estate. Speaking of which given that the bulk of the Baby Boom generation is going to start dying off and transfering their wealth over the next 25 years it would seem the IMF could achieve more by just tinkering with inheiritance taxes.
Canada's 2013 Federal Budget added the "bail-in provision for systemically important financial institutions". And that's after Canada has been bragging and bragging about it's "strong banks"!
It's "highly regulated" banks! And so many Canadians figured the world should copy us we're so damn good!! lol
I sure hope things hang on for a while……I just sold my house and need more time to find something else…….
Actually, Canada does have the world's strongest banks and safest financial system. Canada is the only G-7 country that still has a triple A credit rating.
All the other G-7 countries used to have triple A ratings but ruined themselves by electing bad governments.
Canada has reduced national debt so we pay interest of 11 cents per tax dollar now compared to 30 cents per tax dollar when Chretien was PM. The annual budget is close to break even now and on track to annual budget surpluses starting in 2015.
Even though I don't consider myself a 'Conservative' I appreciate the solid and sensible government we have running Canada at this time.
"and there is a belief that it will never be repeated" Once a tax is implemented, it is hard to get rid of it. Look how long it took to get rid of the "temporary" tax to fund the Spanish American War. It took about one hundred years!
As President Reagan said, "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!"
The same is true for a tax.
In the past the goovies have confiscated gold from the American people, so it would not come as a surprise that congress could pass a law to confiscate our savings. Question is, is your money safe in a brokerage account? since they are not regulated by the same rules as Banks… The IMF memo will be the excuse they will use to ram thru the Super tax
CANADIAN DOLLAR LACKS RESILENCY
Canada's Central Bank has a Net Worth Ratio of + .53%. I'll bet that makes the loons crow (and 'Madison' 9999).
FISH OR CUT BAIT
The excuse "they" will need to ram through a possible international "super tax" will be the gullible and stupid voter base who does not care who pays for what, just so its not them. About the only solution to avoid this financial predation (grand theft) would be to move offshore and give up your passport.
This is how the world is going to end. The nations will unite, and create a very bad government. You won't be able to trade without the mark of the beast, and the beast will be worshipped, and followed by the deceived.
Not everybody is going to follow the Mahdi (Ma-ha'-di) and drink his Kool-Aid either. No dermal RF tags either. I expect they will have a fight on their hands with a large number of like-minded people too. It won't be pleasant for anybody, even if you survive. Until then, you are too far ahead of the crowd and such talk will cause average (secular) people to view you as more than extremist, more like demented.
All you have to do is look at the Obama adviser's to grasp the possibilities and how many
have communist ties and leanings.
Valerie Jarrett
Her father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett, was a journalistic giant.
After his death, he was praised by the People's Weekly Worker,
a Communist publication. He served on a labor committee that
was dominated by Communists.
John Holdren
Holdren has called for a "Planetary Regime" that would control
the global economy. This Planetary Regime would control people's
lives through the use of a worldwide police force.
Holdren has also suggested that people who "contribute to
social deterioration" should be forced to reproduce
responsibly… or be forced into abortions or sterilization.
Mark Lloyd
Wants more "localism" and "diversity" on the public airwaves.
Supports a 100% tax on the operating budget of radio stations.
Carol Browner
Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy
According to the Washington Times, was "one of 14 leaders of
Socialist International's Commission for a Sustainable World Society".
Julius Genachowski
Chairman of the FCC
Genachowski chose Jen Howard, the spokeswoman from Free Press
(headed by Robert McChesney, who used to edit the Monthly Review,
one of the most prominent Marxist publications in the world, to be
his press secretary. Free Press has recently been advising
Obama on their technology policies, and the FCC is
currently consulting with Free Press for possible rules changes.
Former Advisors
Barack Obama has had controversial advisers in his past as well.
These are some of Obama's former advisers that have tended toward
radical beliefs.
Van Jones
Van Jones is a communist and won't deny it.
He is a big environmentalist.
Frank Marshall Davis
In his younger years, Frank Marshall Davis was one of Obama's
mentors. Davis is a former journalist, poet, and political
activist. He was also connected with the Communist party.
Stop the insanity, reinstate FDR's Glass-Steagall bank separation law immediately.