Bank Unwilling to Cash Check from Gold Sale

Only next year Cloud....it was in the movie so it must be true.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

This raises the question: Would there really be tax advantages to paying for property in US gold bullion or 90% silver? The town won't give you any breaks, they already have the property on the books at reasonable taxable value; the state and federal governments follow suit. I have known people who are "out of the system", without SS numbers, etc., possibly dodging child support or the authorities who set up the land as a trust or do not put their SS numbers on the property deed. I do not see tax advantages to doing this as the government presumably shares significant property sales with the various agencies. I am sure there is a book out there somewhere on the advantages of doing this, but like the author of "How to Cook a Vulture" or "Vultures in Eagles' Clothing", they are probably guests of the federal government at Leavenworth, etc..

I looked at this ploy years ago and rejected it for obvious reasons, because a) I have nothing to hide and b) it creates a nasty psychological burden of being afraid of being reported or being found out and having assets seized suddenly, and without warning. A legally untenable position.

 

So do you think that those who own the cash, gold, and silver(and of course an arsenal of heavy weapons) in economic crisis will be the "go to" folks, where everyone is envious of them and will be their willing servants? I don't think history supports this. Think French Revolution, with the rich folks starring as Louis XIV and Marie Antoinette....

 

The court cases against the legal tender amount on PM coins, and IRS rulings have not been judged to be constitutional. That is still an open issue. A successful challenge may very well prevail.

 

Agree. The long decline began in 1961 when Reagan was still a democrat. Few people realize it today, but the Soviet Union was the second largest economy in the world in the late 50s and early 60s.

Countries also seldom collapse from forces external to their own borders. In the case of Russia, -alcoholism, corruption, and an aging population combined to doom them no matter what Reagan (or anyone else) did outside of Russia. The "we bankrupted them with the arms race" is pure falacy in my opinion.

 

I agree. Russia had tremendous internal problems and external economic pressure from the West. It also seems probable that the "collapse" was a planned-and-agreed-upon event in advance. We'll probably never know.

 

I think you are both right and wrong. As you said, the USSR was wrought with corruption and other internal problems. It was a dying regime. That said, the "arms race" of the 1980s certainly sped up the process. They spent a ton of money trying to keep up and it hurt them. Would they have collapsed without "star wars?" Yes, they would have. Would it have happen when it did...probably not. I'll bet a cut out a decade or so.

 

I agree with Camaro that the pressure at least sped up the collapse. They were spending an extraordinary amount of GDP to try to keep up with Reagan. Reagan intentionally applied this pressure, and said as much afterwards. He had no need of a large military, consistently turning down opportunities to get involved militarily around the world. He just wanted to pressure the Soviet economy.

Did it "bring it down" by itself? No, it was a flawed economy. I also though believe it sped up its demise, to the benefit of most of the world. I feel bad for the suffereing the Russian people went through though. I had friends there and sent what little help I could at the time.

 

To put that in perspective, absolutely none of the national debt run up by Reagan in his efforts to out spend the Soviets has been paid back. The debt that Reagan ran up was unprecidented at the time. The USA had the luxury of printing $s and forcing the rest of the world to suck it up. The Soviets didn't.

The accumulated interest payments on all this debt is one of the components that threatens to take down our system as well.

 

True, and we have not yet paid for WWII either. Wars are expensive, which is why I oppose any I can. The cold war was just another war.

 

OK guys...this conversation is starting to go a little too far. I can already see it heading down the road of discussion the policies of President Reagan...and you know the rules. No political discussions. I know I let it go for a bit and even participated...but we have gone far enough. No more political discussions.

 

To the extent they have not been appealed to the US Supreme court you may be correct. However, I have never read of one ruling from the tax court or the Appeals court overturning the ruling. To the extent that current court cases have been judged, every one of the final decisions have been against the taxpayer trying to claim this. There isn't even split circuits, all circuits agree. It has been decided so well that these cases are now treated as frivolous cases, like claiming a person is a sovereign country and such, and as frivolous cases have much harsher penalties for attempting to claim them.

You may be technically right if you claim that until the Supreme court rules its not Constitutional, but by any other measure these cases HAVE been judged and decided, and the Constitutionality of denying the taxpayer claims upheld.

I will give anyone a nickel who will find a competent attorney to take a case like this on a percentage basis.

 

Towns follow the same logic. They will not assess your property lower since the selling price was "only $500 of silver" or such. They will use market value and ignore your clear attempt to defraud. The entier issue has been litigated and determined to be the fraud that it is. Anyone attempting to use this scam against any form of governmental agency is in severe danger of jail time. I for one agree that they should be.

 

Larry Becraft?

Even he is rather fed up with the "paytriot" arguments: http://hiwaay.net/~becraft/deadissues.htm

 

Sorry, but that just sounds too authoritarian. It's the woman's money. At 92 she has seen bank runs and Wall Street crashes, and probably has a distrust of financial institutions as a result. If she wants to keep her money at home, that's her business.

 

Might be but then if something happened inadvertently or otherwise to that money the first thing that happens is the son goes to the bank and sues....can see that coming from a mile a way and I am sure so would the bank. No different then people rushed into brokerage houses in 99/2000, if you were not making 15-20% a year the adviser or broker was a loser. People come in wanting tech...they get tech...market drops broker gets sued, like it was the brokers fault the tech bubble burst or 9/11 happened that made everything worse.

No I am no fan of banks at all, they do none of us any favors; however people will sue if you look at them the wrong way...and they seldom go to court..nah they just settle and in this case the 25k/bank teller 45k/supervisor 75k/branch manager would all have lost they're jobs and been forced to pay they're deductibles on the E&O insurance they personally have to carry....the bank would turn they're back on the employees and the would have been left out in the cold.

They followed established procedural guidelines, they erred on the side of caution, if the lady don't like it go find another bank and have a nice day...If I was the bank would rather have that scenario and an article on some obscure internet site then a lawsuit. The bank provides a service to it's customers, that does not mean the customers can have whatever they want just because. The lady and the son don't like it they can move the account to another bank that will accommodate them, but I suspect as other have said there is a lot more to this story then the fear mongering article itself states.

 

Maybe it's because the lady didn't like the bank that she didn't want them to have her money.

 

Now you can see why poor people like me are happy people.

 

You are true no one will take risk in this type of situation..

 

I am appalled at the knee-jerk belief that if someone wants a wad of cash-- their money-- they're either a criminal or stupid. That just shows how conditioned people have become to automatically assuming the worst of someone they don't know just because that person does something financially out of the ordinary-- but perfectly legal-- like this.

That woman could have any number of legitimate reasons for requesting cash, but I will cite two here.

I have already mentioned that at 92, she has seen bank runs, the Savings and Loan scandal, at least 4 different stock market crashes-- (1929, 1987, 2001, 2009), as well as the the Lehman Brothers and related scandals. Merrill Lynch. Smith Barney. Bear Stearns. S&P. The big financial names that used to command respect have all drug themselves through the mud. So this woman has every right to have completely lost faith in financial institutions.

On top of that, by taking cash, she can divvy up her inheritance any way she wants, while she's alive, and make sure that her heirs get exactly what she wants to give them.