10 responses

  1. Jeff Perren
    November 30, 2012

    I suspect #4 should get at least 0.3. First, ex-pats who are still U.S. citizens are still subject to U.S. income tax even if they earn zero income in the U.S. Second, there are talks, currently stalled but likely to bloom when more people leave the country over the next few years, about expropriating some part of the wealth of those leaving. The recent, highly publicized Facebook investor is a case in point.

    Quibbles aside, it’s pretty scary isn’t it? It reminds me of Norman Thomas’ famous quote that the people will never openly embrace socialism but every program will ultimately be adopted.

    Reply

    • Gregg Wingo
      April 18, 2023

      Looks like a good start to me.

      Reply

  2. Neil
    November 30, 2012

    There is an “exit tax” on all property exceeding $2M (including deferred-tax assets like pension plans). It’s complicated, but essentially you have to pay capital gains tax on your assets as though you had sold them at the time you renounce your citizenship.

    I’d call that a 0.3.

    Reply

  3. Stephen Dahl
    December 1, 2012

    Bears an uncanny resemblance to the Elders of Zion protocols?!?

    Reply

  4. Trapper Garrett
    December 6, 2012

    I would imagine that #9 is a partial check as well. Looking at our suburban areas, where plots are settled individually as distinct from any neighbors, there seems to be an equable distribution of the populace over the land. This is in stark contrast to Germany where the populace is grouped together in towns and surrounded by their fields, which can then act as a demarcation between those towns.

    Reply

  5. Stephen Hicks
    December 7, 2012

    Interesting point, Trapper. Do you think the US distribution reflects top-down government planning, as Marx would do it, or more bottom-up supply and demand? I don’t know one way or the other.

    Reply

    • Gregg Wingo
      April 18, 2023

      That depends on whether you consider local zoning laws as “top-down” dirigisme.

      Reply

  6. Janardan
    May 5, 2020

    No 8. ‘Equal right of all to work’ was directed towards women and the promotion of feminism. Full point! (1.0)

    Reply

    • Stephen Hicks
      May 6, 2020

      Hi Janardan: Point 8 says equal “obligation” to work, not “right” to work.

      Reply

      • Gregg Wingo
        April 18, 2023

        Then welfare work requirements would be socialism in your book. Certainly the New Deal was designed this way until the GOP created the final dole system that we have to day.

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top
mobile desktop