Economists for Linda McQuaig

Forty economists, including many Progressive Economics Forum members, have signed the following statement (PDF version):

We write to endorse Linda McQuaig’s candidacy for the upcoming federal by-election in Toronto Centre.

Linda has deep roots in Toronto Centre, having been born in the riding and lived in it for many years. She is also well-known across Canada.

We know her through her extensive research, writing and advocacy on inequality, tax fairness, fiscal policy, globalization, energy and the environment. Her national bestsellers on these issues not only diagnose social problems, but also prescribe policy solutions.

Too often, right-wing politicians win by presenting themselves as good economic managers. British Columbia’s provincial election was the latest example of how the right’s rhetorical focus on the economy can prevail.

That election also illustrated how simply being cautious and saying little about economic issues is an ineffective defence for the political left. New Democrats must challenge the economic record of conservative governments and articulate alternatives to austerity.

Canada needs elected officials who will credibly and confidently speak up for progressive economic policies.

We need Linda McQuaig in Parliament.

Signatories:

• Abdella Abdou, Economics Professor, Brandon University
• Fletcher Baragar, Economics Professor, University of Manitoba
• Hassan Bougrine, Economics Professor, Laurentian University
• Paul Bowles, Economics Professor, University of Northern British Columbia
• Robert Chernomas, Economics Professor, University of Manitoba
• Michel Chossudovsky, Economics Professor Emeritus, University of Ottawa
• Marjorie Griffin Cohen, Political Economist, Simon Fraser University
• Daniel Drache, Political Economist, York University
• Bryan Evans, Public Administration Professor, Ryerson University and Toronto Centre Resident
• Sam Gindin, Former Chief Economist, Canadian Auto Workers and Former Packer Visiting Professor, York University
• Larry Haiven, Management Professor, Sobey School of Business, Saint Mary’s University
• Andrew Harvey, Economics Professor Emeritus, Saint Mary’s University
• Roderick Hill, Economics Professor, University of New Brunswick
• Ian Hudson, Economics Professor, University of Manitoba
• Andrew Jackson, Former Chief Economist, Canadian Labour Congress and Packer Visiting Professor, York University
• Marc Lavoie, Economics Professor, University of Ottawa and IMK Research Fellow at the Hans Böckler Foundation
• Gordon Laxer, Founding Director of the Parkland Institute, University of Alberta
• James Laxer, Political Economist, York University and Former Candidate for Federal NDP Leader
• Kari Polanyi Levitt, Economics Professor Emeritus, McGill University and Honorary President of the Karl Polanyi Institute of Political Economy, Concordia University
• John Loxley, Economics Professor, University of Manitoba and Royal Society of Canada Fellow
• Hugh Mackenzie, Former Chief Economist, United Steelworkers and Director, Ontario Fair Tax Commission
• Brian MacLean, Economics Department Head, Laurentian University
• Fiona MacPhail, Economics Professor, University of Northern British Columbia
• Mike McCracken, Founder and CEO, Informetrica Ltd.
• Marguerite Mendell, Economics Professor and Vice-Principal of the School of Community and Public Affairs, Concordia University
• Rob Moir, Economics Professor and Chair of Social Sciences, University of New Brunswick and Former Federal NDP Candidate in Fundy Royal
• Tony Myatt, Economics Professor, University of New Brunswick
• Keith Newman, Former Research Director, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada
• Lars Osberg, McCulloch Professor of Economics, Dalhousie University and Former President of the Canadian Economics Association
• Shannon Phillips, Policy Analyst, Alberta Federation of Labour and Former Provincial NDP Candidate in Lethbridge – West
• Louis-Philippe Rochon, Economics Professor, Laurentian University, Founding Co- Editor, Review of Keynesian Economics and Toronto Centre Resident
• Toby Sanger, Economist, Canadian Union of Public Employees
• Mario Seccareccia, Economics Professor, University of Ottawa and Editor of the International Journal of Political Economy
• John Shields, Public Administration Professor, Ryerson University
• John Smithin, Economics Professor, York University
• Jim Stanford, Economist, Unifor and Globe & Mail Columnist
• Brenda Spotton Visano, Economics and Public Policy Professor, York University
• Peter Warrian, Senior Research Fellow at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto, Former Chief Economist of the Province of Ontario, and Toronto Centre Resident
• Mel Watkins, Economics Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto and Former Federal NDP Candidate in Beaches – East York
• Erin Weir, Economist, United Steelworkers and Former Candidate for Saskatchewan NDP Leader

15 comments

  • I wish to ask what Linda McQuaig, her associates, as well as this list of “economists for Linda McQuaig” think of J. Richard Harvey’s change of heart (although still punitive):
    http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1191&context=villanovalwps

    http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2013/09/05/cbt-versus-rbt-a-counter-offer/

    Her representation and communication with constituents to me would be a big concern as Ms. McQuaig has not had the courtesy to acknowledge or answer any of my previous correspondence to her regarding FATCA.

    I would also be interested in the views of each of the listed economists on what you know of FATCA and its consequences for fellow law-abiding, tax-paying Canadians who have a “US indicia”? Do any of you have anything that would be considered US indicia?

  • Canadian Citizen in Toronto

    I also disagree strongly with Ms. McQuaig regarding her enthusiasm for FATCA because this is a one sided concession Canada will make to US that will violate Canada’s Charter of Rights and Privacy laws.

    I am also surprised that all of the economists above who support McQuaig, and must be aware of her key positions, apparently agree with her that FATCA is a good “policy solution.”

    But I am more disappointed that McQuaig has apparently decided not to defend her position on FATCA publicly.

    Why not?

    Could one of the economists above please correspond soon with Ms McQuaig and ask her to begin responding to questions raised about her support for the FATCA concession?

    Thank you

  • Why is Ms. McQuaig is an advocate for FATCA – a US domestic law to be applied extraterritorially – on Canadian sovereign soil to people who have no US source income or property?

    Many of us were born in Canada, but happen to have a US parent. The US law states that US parentage is sufficient to make us taxable wherever we were born and live – even if we were born in Canada and have never set foot in the US.

    Should parentage be the basis of taxation? Does Linda McQuaig support that as a fair and just system?
    Canada and most of the rest of the world except the US and Eritrea tax based on where a person actually lives.

    Why does Linda support a US law that enlists the tax money of all Canadians to pay for the CRA and Canadian banks to report ALL the banking, investment, retirement savings, insurance and other financial details of those the US claims as citizens via birth or via a US parent, when our savings and bank accounts are already primarily pre-taxed wages – taxable by Canada – interest is reported automatically already to the Canada Revenue Agency, and all of the accounts are local and legal?

    This is not only a report of interest earned, but details at the micro level of all deposits and withdrawals. And all this is captured and automatically sent to the IRS – despite that we have committed NO crime, and already pay a full set of taxes in Canada where we live and work.

    The data is not protected and is subject to Homeland Security and Patriot Act laws – and can be shared and disseminated to other US agencies – for other than tax purposes. There is no recourse if our personal data is compromised or identity theft results.

    The intent of the US law is to find, report and capture any and all financial account details and assets belonging to anyone the US defines as a ‘taxable person’ – no matter where in the world they live, no matter their lack of US residence or US source income. No matter even that they don’t earn enough to pay US taxes.

    The US does not care that we in Canada are Canadian citizens and permanent residents who have already paid a full set of taxes to Canada, and who have no economic connection with the US. One or two US parents is sufficient. A long ago US birthplace (ex. border babies in border communities sent to US hospitals when Canadian healthcare services too scarce) also transforms Canadians into US taxpayers.

    I am a Canadian citizen. Like many other Canadians, I was born in another country, and have dual citizenship. Unlike some other Canadians, my country of birth, the US, is hounding over 1 million individuals and families – based only on a status inherited via parentage, birthplace, #of visiting days, or ex-greencard status.

    The US is the only country in the world that does this – other than the sanctioned Eritrea. The US has defined a significant portion of the global population as ‘US taxable persons’ despite having NO US economic connection.

    Why does Canada allow the US to capture and remove Canadian-made assets that were earned here, and locally banked here?

    The US has defined our local legal Canadian accounts as ‘foreign’, US taxable, and demands extensive reporting on ALL accounts where we have ownership, co/signatory powers (even merely future contingent – as in a future planning Power of Attorney for Finances), and imposes potential penalties so large that they are considered to be equivalent of confiscation and possibly unconstitutional under US law.

    We must also report on accounts that belong to our Canadian employer and which are actually owned by other Canadians – who have no obligation to the IRS. The FBAR report is not based on taxable interest, it is the largest balance on any single day in the year. Again, primarily post-tax wages. We also must report on accounts that belong to our Canadian church, school or local community group if we are volunteer treasurers or board members with signature powers on an organization’s accounts -which is NOT taxable by the US.

    How does Linda McQuaig justify supporting this?
    There is significant evidence that if Canada signed on to FATCA with an Intergovernmental agreement, it would abrogate our Charter Rights and would conflict with Canada’s constitution. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vancouversun.com%2Fnews%2FCompliance%2Bwith%2Bviolate%2BCharter%2BRights%2F8086718%2Fstory.html&ei=pUc3Ut-oKKml2wXrsoHIDw&usg=AFQjCNHoIUHkSKcJXCSsEJqgxHLVFeLQOw&bvm=bv.52164340,d.b2I

    http://www.greenparty.ca/media-release/2013-03-13/implementation-fatca-likely-unconstitutional-says-leading-constitutional-ex

    Does Ms. McQuaig support the suspension of Charter rights and discrimination against those with dual Canadian-US citizenship?

  • All the intrusions I described above, plus a confiscatory and devastating penalties will be the result if Canada supports and signs on to implement FATCA here on sovereign Canadian soil.

    If Canada wants to enter into international and multilateral agreements to stop true criminals and deliberate tax evaders from evading taxes in Canada, then it should look to something other than FATCA – which is designed to help only the US.

    We already pay a full set of taxes to Canada. Why should we pay another to the US when we don’t live there or have any economic connection?

    The current Canada-US tax treaty does not prevent the US from making our Canadian TFSAs, RESPs, and Registered Disability Savings Plans into US taxable accounts, though they are NOT taxable in Canada. The current treaty does NOT prevent the US from taxing our EI, or disability income or grants – since the US considers our Canadian benefits to be taxable by the US. The US reserves the right to tax the proceeds of the sale of our Canadian principal residence – which is not taxable in Canada by the CRA.

    Is that okay with Ms. McQuaig? There are many instances where the US double taxes us in Canada, and asserts the right to impose bankrupting penalties.

    We barely escaped the imposition of the Obamacare healthcare tax – which we were to be forced to pay – even though we live in Canada. Only last minute changes exempted us – though there is still an adjunct investment tax associated with funding Obamacare – and the existing ‘reciprocal’ treaty does not protect us from it.

  • I appeal to all the economists on this site, the NDP, and Ms. McQuaig to read this below*, and to objectively explain how this will help Canada, Canadian citizens and residents.

    I can no longer be an NDP supporter (which I have been for all my life) if you truly believe that my little post-tax Canadian bank accounts and my two paltry part-time jobs in Canadian non-profit community organizations should be subjected to the US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act – FATCA, slated to be enacted as a binding “Intergovernmental Agreement” on Canadian soil, imposed on those whose only US connection was inherited through a US citizen parent or a long ago US birthplace.

    McGill International tax and law professor Allison Christians has written extensively on FATCA – and casts serious doubt that the IRS and Treasury even have the actual authority to provide ANY reciprocation to Canada and other countries – particularly when Canada and the US already have the most extensive reciprocal agreement in the world, and when the US knows that Canada is NOT a tax haven. http://taxpol.blogspot.ca/search/label/FATCA http://taxpol.blogspot.ca/2013/02/the-dubious-legal-pedigree-of-fatca.html http://taxpol.blogspot.ca/2013/03/irs-brushes-aside-constitution-to-make.html

    I paid almost 10 percent of my annual income to a US tax preparer – (an annual income which is less than 10,000. CDN ) – in order to get help filling out the incomprehensible and complex US tax and financial reporting forms that the IRS demands even of those without any US economic connection or income or property.

    Look at what a storefront chain is charging for help with US forms: http://www.hrblock.ca/services/US_tax_pricing.asp – the cost just to report – even for those with zero US taxes owing.

    I had to file forms 3520 and 3520A for my (now dissolved TFSA) as well as an FBAR and US tax return even though my income was less than 10,000.
    I owed the US no tax. I paid all my tax as assessed to Canada where I work and live permanently as a Canadian citizen. My savings are all legal local accounts here in Canada. Yet, I had to pay over 350. to prove to the US that I owed them zero taxes and that I am still not a US tax evader, money launderer, terror funder or drug lord.

    I had to give up my small TFSA because the preparer fees to fill out the annual reporting forms exceeded any of my interest, and ate into the principle . Why? Because the US treats TFSAs, RESPs, and RDSPs as US taxable, and demands complex and incomprehensible reporting annually – on two labyrinthine forms – and says that these Canadian savings accounts are ‘foreign’ ‘taxable trusts’ – suspicious only because they are not US accounts. Well, I live in Canada, so I have Canadian accounts – which makes me a potential money laundering tax evading drug lord terror funder in the eyes of the US.

    Do you support that? And FATCA is designed to take that even further. And enlist Canadian banks and the CRA to report every transaction in any account owned by or relating to anyone with US parentage, US birthplace, or any other indication of any US related information. Even if the other joint owner/s of the account is a Canadian-only spouse or family member, or business partner. So, their information is sent to the IRS and disseminated to US federal agencies – even though they are NOT US persons, and are only married to or related to one here in Canada.

    And I’ll have to do all that extensive and expensive and useless US reporting against my will for the rest of my life (and after death via my Canadian estate) even though I have lived in Canada since I was very young, and have been here for almost a half century.

    I want to renounce my unwanted US double taxation shackles, but that costs 450., all sorts of complex forms, certification of 5 years of US ‘compliance’, and an in person visit to a US consulate or embassy in Canada – which may be a plane trip from where I live. The US frowns on renunciation of US citizenship, and makes it as difficult as possible. The process is similar to relinquish a greencard.

    Is that fair or just? How can Ms McQuaig and the economists that support her justify her support of US FATCA as imposed on Canadian citizens and permanent residents? See http://books.google.ca/books?id=I4_HY0QmTp0C&pg=PT169&dq=mcquaig+AND+fatca&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xU43Urn3I4qd2gW3u4H4Bg&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=mcquaig%20AND%20fatca&f=false

    *”Implementation of FATCA Likely Unconstitutional, Says Leading Constitutional Expert”
    13 March 2013 – 2:10pm

    OTTAWA – In a letter to the Department of Finance by leading Canadian constitutional expert Peter Hogg, and obtained by Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament, through an Access to Information request, he warns that an Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) to implement the Foreign Accounts Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) signed with the United States, or legislation to bring it into force, would likely be unconstitutional and in violation of Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    “It is already unthinkable that the Harper Conservatives would consider putting the interests of the United States before those of the Canadian citizens whose lives have been turned upside-down as a result of the FATCA”, said MP Elizabeth May, “but it is worse still that they would do so in violation of the Canadian Constitution.”

    Mr. Hogg’s letter is dated December 12, 2012 and was submitted as part of the call for public comments as part of the ongoing negotiations. “To the extent that any implementing legislation adopts provisions similar to those found in the Model IGA, in my opinion, the legislation would violate s. 15 of the Charter,” he writes. “The source of this problem is the fact that the Model IGA requires financial institutions to treat people differently based on such innate characteristics as place of birth or citizenship.”

    The Model IGA that is being proposed would compel Canadian financial institutions to disclose the private financial information of their clients to the IRS. This would be, in Mr. Hogg’s opinion, in clear violation of Section 15(1) of the Charter, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of “national or ethnic origin”.

    “Professor Hogg is Canada’s foremost constitutional expert, so this letter should provide some cause for hope to the one million Canadians, including hundreds of my constituents in Saanich-Gulf Islands, who have been threatened by this financial witch-hunt,” said Elizabeth May. “Yet in a political environment where the Harper Conservatives are willing to push through legislation that is likely unconstitutional, as raised last week in the House of Commons, I will continue to be vigilant on behalf of my constituents and all other Canadians caught up in this sorry mess.”

    Even the BC NDP caucus pointed out in Parliament and on party websites that FATCA and US extraterritorial taxation and penalizing of Canadian citizens and residents was objectionable. http://www.findonnelly.ca/node/362 http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2012/03/14/government-responded-to-ndp-written-question-on-fbar/

    Why can’t Ms McQuaig and her supporters take a closer look at FATCA and what even Richard Harvey the ‘father of FATCA’ is starting to acknowledge in terms of the ‘unintended’ consequences for all of those who are law abiding, tax paying people who ARE NOT tax evading millionaires and billionaires http://taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/8E6965DFA3441ADF85257BAA0048E526?OpenDocument .

    FATCA assumes our guilt before the fact – contrary to democratic principles – and forces us to prove that we are innocent – for the rest of our lives, based only on US definitions of who is a ‘US taxable person’.

    If France were to enact an extraterritorial tax on those living anywhere in the world with French citizenship, then NDP Leader Mulcair would be subject to double taxation as someone with Canadian and French status. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/thomas-mulcair-defends-dual-citizenship-1.1184291

    If Kenya were to do what the US is doing, and impose citizenship and extraterritorial taxation based on inherited Kenyan status, then President Obama would be subject to double Kenyan and US taxation; http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/archives/story.html?id=71cc9019-69f0-4556-8ab7-f257e8ec2ccf

    I and my fellows in Canada have done no wrong, pay tax faithfully to Canada, receive no services or benefits from the US, and merely inherited a status imposed on us via a parent or an accident of birthplace http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/border-babies-face-fight-for-canadian-citizenship-1.656376

    Will you objectively look at our plight?

  • http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/17/dual-canadian-american-citizens-we-are-not-tax-cheats/

    …”FATCA violates Canadian banking, privacy and human rights laws. It is a violation of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms based on national origin. It may also violate other sections of Canadian Charter….”

  • Canadian (NOT a US taxable person) author writes in The Hill about the abuses we will be subjected to if Canada signs a FATCA IGA – and turns Canadian compliant taxpaying Canadians with a US parent or a US country of origin into criminals – based on their local Canadian earned and held assets and bank accounts.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/313775-fatca-simple-premise-gone-terribly-wrong

    “…These accounts are normal banking, savings and checking accounts and other investment and financial vehicles. Just like Americans living in United States, these accounts are held in a bank in a community where the person lives to pay bills and mortgages and to save and invest in order to buy a home, fund children’s education and plan for retirement.

    Those funds were entirely earned, saved, invested and taxed in country of residence. Often they are held jointly with non-U.S. spouses and family. Sometimes, the accounts belong to an employer or volunteer organization where the “U.S. person” has signing authority.

    Under FATCA, banks will be forced to submit information on total assets, account balances, transactions, account numbers and other personal identifying information. This intrusion goes way beyond a 1099 and would not be accepted or tolerated by Americans living in United States.

    Most Americans living outside the U.S. are not “tax cheats,” “tax evaders” or “traitors” though they are often characterized that way in the media or even by members of Congress.

    Instead, they are honest, productive, contributing residents of other countries, which they call home. In many cases, they are also citizens of those countries.

    Even the King of Thailand, the Mayor of London, England and the Premier of the Canadian province of New Brunswick are considered “U.S. persons” under American law simply because they were born in United States….”

  • Why should Canadian citizens and permanent residents with a US parent or a US national origin be held responsible to pay down the US national debt?

    If Thomas Mulcair – as a dual Canadian-French citizen, were subjected to a French extraterritorial equivalent to FATCA – would he agree that was fair? Would the NDP support the reporting of all his (primarily pre-taxed and post-tax) Canadian personal and joint accounts and assets, balances, all transactions, deposits, withdrawals, locations and account numbers to France automatically? As well as the information belonging to any Canadian he held a joint account with – regardless that they had NO reporting or legal obligation to France? What if France institutes a citizenship-based taxation system identical to the US to help with its debts?

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/thomas-mulcair-defends-dual-citizenship-1.1184291

    Would Thomas Mulcair agree with being deemed a tax evader and tax cheat if he was being taxed by second country (France) – where he had no economic connection, and no residence or presence and received no French services – but was being taxed, penalized and threatened solely on the basis of a French parent or birthplace?

    What if President Obama were a dual US Kenyan citizen and Kenya instituted Citizenship-based Taxation identical to the US? Would he agree to pay a second set of taxes and be threatened with life altering penalties for his legal local ‘foreign’ non-Kenyan accounts in the US?

    http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/archives/story.html?id=71cc9019-69f0-4556-8ab7-f257e8ec2ccf

    Is FATCA and extraterritorial US double taxation and penalty systems only good for OTHER people?

  • What is Linda McQuaig and the federal NDP position on FATCA and the US extraterritorial taxation and penalizing of the Registered Disability Savings of Canadian citizens and permanent residents by the US?

    Canadian citizens living in Canada, who have US parentage or a US birthplace cannot ever own or benefit from TFSAs, RESPs, or RDSPs – because the US taxes these as ‘foreign trusts’ and forces Canadians to file onerous draconian and confiscatory reporting forms. The penalty for even accidental errors is “For any failure to file Form 3520-A, the U.S. owner is subject to an initial penalty of the greater of $10,000 or 5% of the gross value of the trust. IRS § 6048(b)(1). For continued failure to file past 90 days after the IRS mails notice of such filing failure, the U.S. owner is subject to an additional $10,000 penalty for each 30-day period during which the failure continues (subject to certain penalty thresholds).” AND “the IRS can impose both (1) initial penalties for the previous failures to file of the greater of $10,000 or 35% of the reportable amount for each 30-day period of continued filing delinquency after notice is received (up to 90 days) and (2) additional penalties of the greater of $10,000 or 5% of the reportable amount for each 30-day period of continued delinquency after the expiration of the initial 90-day notice period. IRC § 6677(a)-(b).” http://www.americanbar.org/publications/probate_property_magazine_2012/2013/july_august_2013/article_kayan_weyenberg_foreign_trusts_form_3520_and_form_3520a.html

    Canadian parents who have a child or dependent with disabilities that render them deemed mentally or intellectually incompetent are NOT allowed to ever renounce their US citizenship. Thus, the child or dependent must remain a deemed ‘US taxable person’ for life. And, their RDSP is taxable by the US and penalizable. The Canada – US Tax treaty does NOT exempt RDSPs, TFSAs, RESPs from US taxation, draconian laws, incomprehensible reporting obligations and confiscatory penalties.

    Do Progressive Economists also support the US taxation and penalizing of disabled and dependent Canadians who happen to have a US parent or a US birthplace? Do Progressive Economists support the taxation by the US of Canadian disability grants and support payments?

    Do Progressive Economists also support the US prevention of Canadian children and those deemed incompetent to renounce the US citizenship that keeps them bound into US extraterritorial tax and penalty chains?

    Under FATCA, and FBAR- the US Bank Secrecy Act, these children and disabled citizens and residents of Canada must declare or have a guardian declare for them all their Canadian bank accounts and assets to the US. Ostensibly in order to prevent money launderers, terror funders, drug lords and tax evaders from escaping the US.

    Are US laws designed for criminals appropriate to apply to Canadian children and dependents?

    Do we stripsearch ALL citizens and residents just in case a few might be criminals?

    US laws that burden Canadian citizens and permanent residents in Canada do not distinguish between the US resident with millionaire Cayman accounts, and disabled children with an RDSP.

  • CanadianCitizentoo

    The US taxes and penalizes the TFSAs (and RDSPs and RESPs) of Canadian citizens and residents – our registered savings are not protected under the double taxation provisions of the current Canada-US tax treaty:

    http://business.financialpost.com/2013/03/08/tfsas-a-new-tax-risk-for-americans-living-in-canada/?__lsa=9cef-3b0a

    The US taxes and penalizes Canadian citizens and residents with a new Obamacare adjunct tax – not creditable under the Canada-US tax treaty:
    http://business.financialpost.com/2013/01/12/obamacare-could-cost-some-canadians-a-lot-of-money/

    http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/irs-rules-for-americans-living-abroad-sharpening-212449331.html

  • CanadianCitizentoo

    FATCA and FBAR and US extraterritorial taxation of Canadian citizens and permanent residents of Canada is the opposite of progressive. Progressive taxation redistributes wealth within a nation. In this case, the US sucks the legal, local, primarily post-tax and pre-taxed assets and earnings of Canadian out of Canada’s economy, and redistributes them to the US.

    Taxation based on citizenship is NOT the basis that the rest of the world uses for taxation. All except Eritrea and the US tax based primarily on RESIDENCE and place of economic activity.

    Why should Canada assist the US to tax those who live, work, earn, save and were born or naturalized in Canada?

    McGill International Tax scholar Allison Christians writes about FATCA:
    http://taxpol.blogspot.ca/2013/01/why-fatca-is-tax-treaty-override.html

    http://taxpol.blogspot.ca/2013/03/irs-brushes-aside-constitution-to-make.html

    http://taxpol.blogspot.ca/2013/02/the-dubious-legal-pedigree-of-fatca.html

  • CanadianCitizentoo

    Canadian constitutional scholar and lawyer Peter Hogg issues opinion on the constitutionality and charter issues re a Canada IGA with US FATCA

    http://www.greenparty.ca/sites/greenparty.ca/files/attachments/peter_hogg_fatca.pdf

    http://www.greenparty.ca/media-release/2013-03-13/implementation-fatca-likely-unconstitutional-says-leading-constitutional-ex

    So why would Progressives support the implementation of FATCA US laws on Canadian citizens and permanent residents who are full tax compliant in Canada and have no US source income, earnings, investments or any other economic relationship?

  • I posted several prior civil, well reasoned and rational questions and comments re FATCA and the NDP and McQuaig positions regarding the actual implications of a FATCA IGA and concomitant effects on ordinary CRA tax compliant Canadian citizens and permanent residents living in Canada.

    I provided links to robust, relevant and verifiable sources for my comments and opinions.

    I have been an NDP supporter all my life. So are most of my Canadian family and friends.

    Something is wrong when a civil call for a public conversation by the NDP, and by an NDP candidate seeking election – and a plea to consider important issues that would affect Canada at large, is repeatedly moderated out of existence.

    If Linda McQuaig, Thomas Mulcair and the federal NDP supports Canada signing a FATCA intergovernmental agreement with the US, then shouldn’t they be prepared to come out and share that position and reasoning in an open conversation with the Canadian public?

    If not, then why not?

    I think Jack Layton would have.

  • If Linda does not address FATCA, it will blow up in her face and torpedo her campaign.

  • CanadianCitizentoo

    Lest you think that we in Canada owe the US anything, read the official words of even the IRS Taxpayer Advocate:
    “About 82 percent of U.S. taxpayers abroad did not have a U.S. liability.”

    Many of us would like to renounce our unwanted US status, but it is a complex, expensive and difficult process. Minors and those deemed legally incompetent are not allowed to renounce US citizenship.

    Please see the critique by Prof Allison Christians of McGill:

    “This is interesting because this is all happening during America’s ongoing roundup of every person on the planet who may be a US citizen because they were born in the US or by birthright through their lineage, for the purpose of imposing draconian penalties for failure to file tax returns and asset information reports under the US citizenship-based tax regime. This is the only tax regime in the world that treats lineage alone as a justification to impose worldwide taxation. Ted Cruz’s expressed thoughtlessness about his own dual citizenship, coupled with his breezy intention to simply get rid of the unwanted extra citizenship, beautifully illustrates the major problem with citizenship-based taxation and why no other country on the planet would try to enforce such a system.

    The US is right now imposing enormous penalties and unleashing general chaos on people living in other countries with US citizenship, both by newly enforcing long-ignored rules and by layering on top of these rules a new and more draconian layer of enforcement. The chaos comes in the form of fear-inducing, devilishly complicated and duplicative paperwork, and penalties, most of all penalties, and it is being piled on to millions of people around the world….

    Ted Cruz should consider himself very lucky, because the citizenship he claims he didn’t realize he had doesn’t carry any punishment for his failure to recognize it. Moreover renouncing, if he really intends to follow through on that promise, will be relatively simple, cheap, and painless…..

    Not so if he had lived his life in Canada with his current apparent dual status. US citizens abroad now understand that discovering ties to the US means discovering a world of obligations and consequences flowing from citizenship that you were expected to know and obey. Ignorance of the law being no excuse, the punishments range from the merely ridiculous–many times any tax that would have ever been due–to the infuriating: life savings wiped out and many future tax savings sponsored by your home government, such as in education or health savings plans, treated as offshore trusts and therefore confiscated by the US. Moreover there is no ready escape hatch for the newly discovered and unwanted US citizenship: five years of full tax reporting compliance must be documented, appointments must be made with officials, fees must be remitted, interviews must be conducted, and in some cases exit taxes must be paid.”………
    http://taxpol.blogspot.ca/2013/08/here-is-only-reason-why-ted-cruzs.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.