Thursday, March 19, 2015

License to Cheat & the Changing of the Guard

Remember this? Not so stupid after all, it turns out. It may've been laying the groundwork for a setup.

Check out IRS Notice 2014-33: apparently, these two fiscal years will be a "transition period" regarding enforcement of foreign income reporting requirements. Yes, that's right: the local police department just sent a memo to the high-income zip code informing people that the next couple of years will be a transition period for speeding ticket enforcement, and April Gillespie just told Saddam that her boss had no opinion on Iraq's border dispute with Kuwait.

Glorious setup for those who have been not reporting "foreign income," e.g., not paying taxes on foreign investments? Or, is it an obvious trap for the same group?

If you're not following the question so far, what it means is that the I.R.S. (the American tax agency) announced that it will probably not punish wealthy people who break certain tax laws in 2014-2015, while it "transitions" its policies regarding those laws. What the I.R.S. did is equivalent to telling certain wealthy people, "Go ahead and cheat on your 1040s this year. We will probably be too busy to punish you."

To what we might, in the vernacular, call "morons," this means that the I.R.S. is very busy developing big important rules, so for a while, they'll need to focus their audit teams on domestic salaries earned by non-wealthy households. To what we might, in the vernacular, call "grown ups," this means that the I.R.S. is (again) officially a big scam meant to take money away from those who work and give it to those who sit on their butts and collect rent based on "ownership" rules made up by evil racketeers thousands of years ago.

In earlier periods, America would do this kind of thing behind closed doors. Mayors and aldermen, judges and other bigwigs, would meet with local nobility (just think "businessmen") at clubs, or over private dinners, and talk about how, to "encourage development," they were going to "probably" not be able to as aggressively pursue, say, certain coding violations for a certain period. Those businessmen who were in the know nodded seriously, then cut corners during said period, gaining a distinct economic advantage over regular citizens, to whom the law still applied. Everyone intelligent suspected that something had gone on, but because of the privacy involved, no one could prove that a bribe had been exchanged for a favor. And most people, despite their deep-seated gut feelings that the economy wasn't fair, were unable to believe that anyone could be quite so dirty as that (gasp!). After all, no one outside of a movie could be so unfair, right? People never act in coordination to make money, and it would take sooooo many people to be involved in such a sophisticated conspiracy.

Now, though, some of this stuff is being released to everyone, the way the I.R.S. did last year. 2014-33 is a public notice available on the internet to every person in the entire world. The license to kill--or to steal, to cheat, etc.--is right there on the I.R.S. site, freely accessible with government backing.

It's audacious, certainly. City managers and state legislators mimic their federal peers in cutting advantageous land and tax deals with their cosplay selves. Example: two family friends, one of whom works for Walmart and the other of whom is on a city council, arrange to give Walmart a "sales tax inducement" to set up shop locally. Normal citizens subsidize the construction of private buildings, allowing Walmart to pocket more money, some of which they kickback to reelection campaigns. Yawn. Boring. America: the land where no one cares anymore. A hundred years before Dick Cheney began farting into the White House bedding, the Halliburton connection would've been a scandal, rather than an irrelevant bit of liberal trivia. So yes, it's certainly an audacious methodology they use now. No more does the policeman wave his baton sideways and lie, "Nothing to see here." Now, it's more of a level look, a hand on the gun, and an honest, "We're cheating you, but you don't got the guts."

And yet, elites are continually clever. This kind of tax notice (license to cheat) suggests a piece of information that could be useful to mere bourgeois, whom elites sometimes hate more than proles.

So the question is, again, did they release this announcement of a no-tax license in order to reassure their buddies that this was a good time to transfer stuff without risking audit?* Or, did they release it in hopes that clever bourgeois would notice the "mistake," try to take advantage of it, and get caught, thereby diluting or eliminating middle class savings as part of the cyclical washing out of potential future elites?

( *Just like the risk that a nobody local D.A. might bust Senator Such-And-Such over bribery allegations, the elites' only risk from the I.R.S. is if they have a falling out with someone more powerful, or if an agent investigates something directly, rather than referring it to the higher-ups. Barring infighting, the right people are never going to get investigated, so their biggest concern in that regard is that some overzealous little true-believer might notice an inconsistency and look into it on her/his own, causing an expensive embarrassment before someone "more experienced" takes over the case and buries it.)

Either answer seems equally plausible. Various market indicators are consistently used to destroy pension plans, sub-8-digit private equities, and other hallmarks of a menacingly large set of future elites. Cyclical crises destroy middle class holdings quite deftly, as do constant methods, the most successful being the income tax. Tricking some would-be clever physicians and project managers into massive fines for foreign "tax evasion" could be, merely, a great way to strip them of their potential one or two millions--ergo the cunning release of a "non enforcement period," akin to the attractive police academy girl who leans into your car window in the red light district with a bargain offer, hoping to create a prosecutable event.

And yet, elites are now that brazen. It is by no means ridiculous to suggest that they simply did this as another part of their public cheatery; there is no identifiable low to which they would sink, and no act so un-savvy that it would risk rebellion if discovered.

If you're into the Nazis, you'll note an interesting parallel between the way that this particular event--whether entrapment setup or elite invitation to cheat by not disclosing foreign rents--mirrors the pre-Great War coordination designed to get the right people out of the kill zone before the proverbial shit hit the fan. Videlicet, ensuring that the whitest, most important racketeers were given a signal that it was time to quietly move their investments and families from continental Europe to England or the U.S.A. In the years prior to the assassination of the archduke, the right white people moved to America, escaping the decades of European and North African trench and chemical warfare, holocaust, and racialized land-grabs that were to come. Like the printing press, the internet creates a massive efficiency for them, for it permits them to communicate instantly to one another, in code, warnings like "Get the hell out of Europe, we're going to destroy it."

We see there a good way to predict when a new nation will be chosen as military hegemon: by watching the elites' movements. Like proverbial rats, they'll be the first to know when the ship is going to sink, although unlike rats, they possess the knowledge because they're the ones who screwed a hole in the hold. The powerful Roman lines who escaped the barbarians didn't do so by lucky coincidence, but because it was time to re-establish financial capitals in Gaul, then the Celtic Isles. So too with the later pre-WW1 shift to America, when the land pirates didn't want to be around to suffer the destruction of their earlier capitals, which destruction would justify the brutal establishment of new ones.

(Interesting side note on Britain: Oxford elites are now trying to hide the Celtic genocide down the memory hole, by claiming that--get this--the Roman invaders are actually Celtic. Double take. How much more ridiculous could you get? Yet Oxford is actually claiming that, based on a study of people who interraped (interbred is far too kind a word) their way into a society hundreds of years ago, shattering and dispersing what was there earlier.

Wait a few hundred years, and America will be doing its own version of this, too. Harvard or Yale will proudly announce that 95% of Americans have genes that prove they are descendants of Native Americans, therefore, there were no Indian Wars. That's how filthy and audacious Oxford is, but as the Celtic genocide recedes into history, it becomes easier for the rapespawn offspring of the ex-Roman Senators to pretend that they themselves were actually the druids who were there first. It's logically impossible to equate the ex-Roman, ex-Gaul pirates to the people who were invaded and killed off by those very pirates, but through rape slavery and murder, one can so wholly kill and replace a culture that one can assume, in retrospect, the identity of the departed.

Half a millennium later, similarly, South Africa and Israel will be able to "prove" that their own populations are, actually, Arab, therefore Europe never invaded Palestine. Such are the flaws of believing too heavily in the importance of genes; the spirit of a people, its culture and its synergetic life, can be totally destroyed, even if some of the genes are preserved through sellouts or rape. In a thousand years, your people will believe that they never existed. Which is a kind way of putting it--rather, they'll believe that they existed, but existed as the invaders. That's why Palestine might ghost dance: not because the people will all be gone in a genetic sense, but, as in the case of the American tribes, because something will have been irrevocably destroyed. Something that doesn't appear in a vial.)

Returning to financial markmanship, keep an eye on those elites. When it's time for them to drop the U.S. and fiddle with the map a little, you'll notice more of them strengthening their ties to wherever they'll want to pretend to be natives of, when a new hegemon arises. They won't entirely pull up roots and abandon American citizenship, oh no--that's the old way. There are people smart enough to recognize that. Instead, they'll buy multiple citizenships, feign continued ties to the U.S., but always have that one foot out the door, so that before the switch is thrown, they can be at a villa in Italy (Romney; Vidal) a panic suite in London (Bush), or a concrete fortress in the Manhattan Pacification Authority headquarters (Clinton). Hegemon switches don't result in long zombie apocalypses, but merely brief transitions to second- or third-world status.

Actors aren't the real ones to track, though, even though their antics are the funniest. If you're actually interested in trying to stay one step ahead of the system, be ready to move when the unmentionable bankers behind the curtain pull up their ties and resettle. Collapse is never collapse; it's just rezoning.


  1. It feels like the US has already been abandoned, though it is not clear where next: they have pissed off Europe, Russia, China, and Latin America. Maybe they'll start over in Africa.

    1. They've pissed off everybody, starting in Africa, and that's never affected their mobility. Even though they've pissed off Americans, they're still here, getting votes and taxes and resigned acceptance. They'll likely manage to continue to get that from everywhere else.

  2. Okay, so your entire blog is based on the conviction that politics/ethics of responsibility is a waste of time, and we should just cease dealing with the daily routines of this horrible world, in the name of ethics of ultimate ends.

    So, pretty old, pretty fundamental problem, but do you have an actual solution? Why should I read your blog, instead of just sticking with the New Testament, or maybe the Upanishads?

    1. Good point, good point. Anonymous lamented similarly to the War Movies post, and we'll soon be addressing "solutions" when we talk more about evolution. This one took a break from evolution after a long series of contra-capital posts (around December 2014), but we'll return to it.

      To the first part of your response, it's not a waste of time; theoretically, you could commit lesser atrocities in order to gain a chance at being respectable enough to prevent future, greater, atrocities. That's one of those "once you start down the dark path..." situations, but in theory, someone could be hardy enough and ends-justified enough to make it work, even though it would be wrong.

      For example, you could spend several years as a doctor, responsibly drugging schoolchildren into quietude, employees into unstressed dullardity, and cancer/autoimmune patients into the ovens. And then, after an illustrious and respectable 25 year career, you could throw it all away by announcing to the NYT that you have participated in a giant evil scam. You could offer personal testimony about how you were given kickbacks for non-critically lubricating the wheels of a vile society. And you could justify all the carnage you had caused by the potential positive impact of your defection.

      So far, whenever cops or doctors or minor legislators (or Dwight or Jimmy) get late-life consciences and try to warn people about what they've been part of, few care. But in theory, enough people making that sacrifice could change it. It's a dirty means to an end, but would it save the world if enough people did it?

      No, but I can sympathize with the idea of trying; of sacrificing one's own soul to wrongness in order to save those of others (presuming you are too innocent to realize the impossibility of using math in that way, and actually think your plan is good).

    2. This is approximately how I feel the only resolution between the two ethics is possible (after all, they are not really opposites). Basically, a mature adult plods along, until maybe one day she says "that's enough, no mas".

      Don't know what implications for "evolution" you ses here, but for me the main implication is there will never be an "end to history", just a perpetual vacillation between horror and occasional decency.
      (And even this might be too optimistic - back in the day at least the notion that there are values 'not of this world' was common sense. Now it is almost dangerous, loosely speaking, to suggest that.)

  3. Why should I read your blog, instead of just sticking with the New Testament, or maybe the Upanishads?

    The better question would be,

    Why do I read anything?

    and direct it to yourself.