Once and for-all

copperhead

copperhead

Active Member
Can governments force us to turn in Gold . I feel not cause we purchased it for personal use and is not currency (we own it)
I have noticed sellers of silver and gold use the 1933 fear tactic to convince many to own pre 1933 coinage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102
Yet there it is in cold hard writing Bullion When we buy Bullion I see no disclaimers with purchase of it.
I own it .
Id say they steel our wealth all the time now . A trip to the supermarket answers all . Our money is worth Less and Less.
 
Just because a government hasn't done something before doesn't mean that it won't seek to do it in the future.

I believe if our gov't ever went after people's bullion, they would not bother with silver and only go after gold.
Central Banks no longer stock silver.



.
 
I wonder how many big gold stackers there are in Australia..(Those who have a stack of over 100ozs )...Surely the government would take the production from the gold miners first if they were to confiscate gold.

Regards rrol 43
 
What FDR did in 1933 (gold "confiscation") is one of the most misunderstood things talked about in the PM community. Yes, it was a $h!tty thing to do to the "citizens" at the time. But it was done because the gov wanted to lower the value of the dollar and to do that they had to revalue gold higher. Kind of like "money printing" back in the day.

Before the "confiscation" gold was set at $20.67 per ounce. This price did not fluctuate but was set by the gov. After the "confiscation" they revalued the gold to $35 per ounce, that price didn't fluctuate or change until 1971..

What is never mentioned is that the executive order allowed each citizen to keep $100 face in gold coins. That is for each person. From what I have read most average folks didn't have that much gold during that time period so it was a non issue for them. The wealthy and such who were smart sent their gold to Europe and other places. To this day caches of old US gold coins still turn up in vaults in Europe from time to time.

They could not do what they needed back then without calling in the gold and taking away a citizen's right to convert paper to gold. They needed to change the currency (lower the value of it) and since the currency was backed by gold they needed the gold and needed to increase what the gold was "worth". Foreign countries could still demand gold from the US for debt repayment and such, and the US had no problem paying them with that revalued gold until 1971 when Nixon put an end to it all.

Today there is no need for the gov to take a person's gold in the US. They can print as much money, revalue/devalue, or do whatever they want with it and gold does not enter the equation.

I am more concerned about another BS "assault weapons ban" like Bill Clinton did or other 2nd Amendment challenges rather than a gold or silver confiscation. The US Mint sells gold coins, like they are really going to now "confiscate" them. Won't happen unless you see gold go to the moon and the dollar go to near zero. If that were to happen the gov might "confiscate" everything of value a person has, if they get that desperate.

Just my opinion.

Jim
 
Most sales have not been reported and would be hard to confiscate. Much easier to heavily tax the gain.
 
dccpa said:
Most sales have not been reported and would be hard to confiscate. Much easier to heavily tax the gain.
Click to expand...
In Australia, undeclared wealth is incredibly easy to confiscate if there is a potential tax liability and the value of the assets is substantial. The onus of proof is reversed and you need to prove you aquired the assets legitimately.
 
SilverPete said:
dccpa said:
Most sales have not been reported and would be hard to confiscate. Much easier to heavily tax the gain.
Click to expand...
In Australia, undeclared wealth is incredibly easy to confiscate if there is a potential tax liability and the value of the assets is substantial. The onus of proof is reversed and you need to prove you aquired the assets legitimately.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, I am in the US. Who said anything about undeclared wealth? I report the sales of my pms on my tax returns and I have proof of purchases for about 99% of my pms. If I lived in AU, I would be more worried about China taking my country, than the government taking my gold. Don't think either possibility has a chance at the moment. Stealing cash from bank accounts is so much easier and all they have to do is give the order. The banks will do the work. I believe the IMF has a position paper (October 2014?) on a worldwide plan to seize part of bank assets to pay off government debts.
 
So my question is I have not saved any of my Provident receipts or JM Bullion
should I contact them as I am sure at this time they could send me a sheet of proof of all my purchases ( itemized ) 5 or 10 years out I think not .
It was passing my mind recently
as proof might be important
as one day Individuals in power can say anything
with out proof
 
^^^
Another member here reasonably recently stated that they were selling off their current stocks of PMs and rebuying with receipts. Their reasoning was that they had few receipts for their current stack and would be hard-pressed that they had bought it legally. Concern re the confiscation of undeclared wealth caused them to desire appropriate receipts more than the cost of the turnover.
 
I can print you bogus receipts for 10% value of the purchases you claim sent to my PayPal account in advance.











Not! :)




.
 
The reason to have silver and gold is to avoid holding failing (or failed) government currency. That is, devalued cash currency due to government mismanaged budgets or monetary policy. Gains in metals versus currency are of the government's own making. Think about that before agreeing to impositions.
Metals have to be located before they are confiscated or taxed.
 
The Crow said:
^^^
Another member here reasonably recently stated that they were selling off their current stocks of PMs and rebuying with receipts. Their reasoning was that they had few receipts for their current stack and would be hard-pressed that they had bought it legally. Concern re the confiscation of undeclared wealth caused them to desire appropriate receipts more than the cost of the turnover.
Click to expand...

All this talk about "legitimising" your stack by having the receipts etc is silly. How does that in any way prove you acquired it "legally"?
You can "legally" buy PM's from anyone, with or without a receipt, it is not against the law. And it can't be made against the law retroactively.
What the government would care about is where you got the money from to buy them and if you paid the correct tax on that income, that's what matters.
 
Why take 100% of citizens Gold which would require months of legislative planning, years to implement and 100x more man power than the government currently has when they can get more wealth with the stroke of a pen by taxing away just 3% of everyones SUPER, 401(k)s, IRAs etc.

We live in a differnt world to 1933 now.
 
how could the government confiscate from miners? no company is going to continue to mine if their product is simply taken from them. would the government pay market value for the gold and be obliged to buy everything produced whether they want to or not? would they became the mining company and mine and process it themselves?

miners would just walk away and say, "you want it, you dig it up".

confiscation from miners doesn't sound like a simple option to me, actually, the whole idea of confiscation doesn't sound like a simple option.
 
Ag bullet said:
how could the government confiscate from miners? no company is going to continue to mine if their product is simply taken from them. would the government pay market value for the gold and be obliged to buy everything produced whether they want to or not? would they became the mining company and mine and process it themselves?

miners would just walk away and say, "you want it, you dig it up".

confiscation from miners doesn't sound like a simple option to me, actually, the whole idea of confiscation doesn't sound like a simple option.
Click to expand...


Actually, "confiscation" or whatever you want to call if from miners (and other commodity producers) is not only more likely than other scenarios, but it does happen even to this day . When the gov's take a mine or other producing commodity source they call it NATIONALIZATION.

For the most part, this happens primarily in third world types of places who do this all the time to oil co's and mining co's and such, then make the co. give up a large percentage if the company wants to stay in said country and operate there.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/baobab/2010/10/mine_nationalisation_south_africa

http://www.reuters.com/article/chile-mining-idUSN1144866820080711

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-election-nationalizations-idUSBRE89701X20121008

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization_of_oil_supplies

Just my opinion.

Jim
 
Times are different then 1933
But I feel if there was a type of confiscation it would be friendly
you would have to decide should I turn in my PM's for a Government fire sale of Fiat
that the gov would offer
as long as Fiat is the main way to get goods and services
a Gov fire sale would be tempting .

We should realize Governments are aware of Stacker's
they care not of each of us
they can figure us as a whole from the taxes paid out from Bullion companies
when the stacking from the public reaches a level of wealth that is advantageous
to the Gov , they will tax the sale of PM's .

The greed will come alive from Governments
as the public as a whole develops ( REAL ) wealth
and thats what PM's are !!
real wealth
History has shown when wealth of a type of individual
grows , there is theft .
If by force , it is a war over religious views .
or ethnicity of human races .
We can figure as ISIS invade's areas ,
Enough people will out of desperate hope
give all there wealth to save there lives
the ultimate real wealth
YOUR LIFE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top