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?"