Coming to a Bank Near You

One can only conclude that the debacle in Cyprus is a test. A test to see just how far they can go. Thus far it seems to be successful and other countries, for example New Zealand, are also reported to be considering throwing out the legally mandated deposit insurance and similarly seizing the assets of private individuals – many of whom, especially if they happen to be Russian or Chinese, will simply have their rights dismissed on the transparently racist grounds that they are probably criminals and tax dodgers.

In geo-political terms it has to be an idiotic move to try to placate the population you are robbing by telling them openly that you are robbing more from Russians – who if they have any money at all are assumed to have obtained it by criminal means. Really? So if all these Russian depositors in Cyprus are criminals why were they allowed to open accounts in the first place? The EU has mandated anti-money laundering and know-your-customer legislation to prevent such things. How did so much of this allegedly stolen money manage to end up in their banks when those banks are legally required to establish that the money being deposited has been legally obtained by the depositor?

Are we once again, as with HSBC, being forced to to turn blind-eyes to the pervasive criminality of commercial banks? So long as they are not Russian criminals, naturally. We only bail-out our own gangsters. Indeed, if the allegations were believable, then isn’t it right and proper that this fraudulently obtained money be returned to its rightful owners? What message does it send to the world that foreign thieves are welcome to deposit their ill-gotten gains in European banks for a 10% surcharge? Tell that to the rightful owners.

Deposit insurance is mandatory in the EU. If you put money into an EU bank and you are, for any reason, unable to withdraw it the government has to pay you back at least the first hundred thousand Euro. Except now, when it’s the government itself that is taking the money out of the accounts. It’s quite an exceptional insurance fraud really. You lose money in your bank account and your insurers tell you that your claim is not valid since they are the ones who stole it. Try that one in a court of law. The courts are a joke, owned by the banks and operating as subsidiaries of international business cartels. The judge’s role is to rubber-stamp every business request and jail anybody who objects. Only the most incompetent, malicious, and sexually-depraved lawyers – which admittedly doesn’t much narrow the field – will ever get appointed judges. How else could they be blackmailed into toeing the line?

To most of us though, this is all theatrics. If they were to confiscate ten-percent of my own bank account, for example, they would get $14. Hardly worth their while. They are welcome to confiscate ten-percent of my bills at the same time though. I’d like to see them try to pay off $2,000 of final demands with $14.

Withdraw Your Money From The Bank

But to those who do still have money in Western banks, you’d be wise to withdraw it sooner rather than later. With interest rates lagging behind inflation you lose money by keeping it in the bank and you’d be better off either keeping it under the bed or perhaps spending it all now while you still have the chance.

Banks used to trade on trust. Now they, and their regulators, have demonstrated that that trust no longer applies. If you deposit money for safe-keeping you are now assumed to have purchased a bond from which you will have to share in the bank’s losses but will not be entitled to share in its profits. That turns your bank into a casino that keeps your money when you lose, and doesn’t have to pay out when you win.

Banks were forced on us in the 1980s when they ganged up with employers to insist we all get paid our wages by bank transfer. Now they’ve got us by the balls as a result. Perhaps we should demand our wages are paid in cash from now on. Either way there will always be a risk. With cash you might be robbed on the street, put the cash in the bank and you might be robbed by your banker. They are both thieves, but at least the street mugger has the courage to put his own ass on the line in commission of his robbery, as opposed to those cowards who plunder us anonymously from the comfort and security of their employer’s offices.

One-Off Tax

Your mainstream media will be forbidden from using words and phrases such as “confiscation” and “asset seizure”, and the most likely PR term for it will be the “One-Off Tax”. Momentarily we shall consider how this might be applied in practice, but it behooves us to understand its purpose. With an estimated $20,000,000,000,000 in unpayable debt still slooshing around the banking system the days in which it can be shifted from one nation’s books to another’s are numbered. A Cypriot-style asset seizure is being spoken about more and more. This talk had already begun to escalate prior to Cyprus due in large part to the FBI’s recent and otherwise incomprehensible authorization to track all Americans’ personal financial records.

In the United States there is talk of a seizure of up to 30% of net wealth. If this were to happen, and without speculating one way or the other, how could it even be implemented? Most people’s wealth, if they have any at all, is in their home and their pension plans. Seizing money out of pension and deposit accounts is something the authorities can do with ease – they simply grant themselves the authority and order the banks to hand it over. The rightful owners are powerless to stop it. There is no reason that banks would support any kind of challenge to such an order because the money handed over is going to be used to pay off the bank’s own bad debts. The banks themselves wish to maintain at least some semblance of respectability, so better for them that the regulators steal the money from customer accounts. It’s also simply a matter of number crunching to calculate how much money 30% of someone’s pension or account balance is. But these kinds of smash-and-grab seizures are unseemly, and the worldwide rage provoked by events in Cyprus probably set some alarm bells ringing too.

A more likely scenario is a US led drive for a global “One-Off Wealth Tax” (probably limited to taxing “only” the first million dollars of one’s “wealth” though). Implementation would then be in the form of that year’s tax assessment being raised by 30% of whatever one’s current wealth is assessed to be. In many cases though it will be the family home that stores the wealth and the family simply would not be able to afford to pay so much extra tax. Giving them time to pay is pointless, since this money needs to be raised now. So here is where the banks will step in to help. Mr Jones had to pay an extra $30,000 “one off tax” because he was diligent and has paid off a lot of his existing mortgage debt. In spite of his diligence nonetheless Mr Jones simply does not have the extra $30,000 to pay the bill. He doesn’t have an extra $30. This problem is easily solved. The bank will be “required” to increase Mr Jones’ mortgage to cover the cost of his “wealth tax”. Social security funding will likely suffer a similar “tax”, since having no wealth is not a valid reason for not being taxed on it.

It’s beautiful really. The government orders everybody to hand over thirty-percent of their wealth to the banks, and then the banks lend those people their own money back to them. The financial crisis will have been solved, the banks will be seen to be lending again, their twenty-trillion dollars in bed debts will have been paid off by the public, and the whole rotten cycle can begin anew.

This entry was posted in DUBKAFile and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.