Wealthy people are renouncing American citizenship(axios.com)
axios.com
Wealthy people are renouncing American citizenship
https://www.axios.com/wealthy-people-are-renouncing-american-citizenship-67fbada4-e2e4-4699-b106-c986839f209d.html
854 comments
> It's so irritating to be an American that has moved overseas. Basically the only country in the world that charges taxes on money you make and spend somewhere else, just because of where you were born.
This is exactly why these people are renouncing US citizenship: They’re living overseas as citizens of another country and, like anyone rich or poor, don’t want to be paying taxes to a country they aren’t living in.
It’s not exactly unfair or nefarious. If they’re no longer living in the US and they are citizens and residents of another country, surrendering US citizenship is a logical choice.
Renouncing US citizenship is a common move for this exact reason. This article just happens to have drawn an arbitrary line in the wealth of people who renounce US citizenship and made a headline out of the wealthier subset. The wealthy are also more like to have dual-citizenship but relocate to another country, so they’d be over represented in this set.
This is exactly why these people are renouncing US citizenship: They’re living overseas as citizens of another country and, like anyone rich or poor, don’t want to be paying taxes to a country they aren’t living in.
It’s not exactly unfair or nefarious. If they’re no longer living in the US and they are citizens and residents of another country, surrendering US citizenship is a logical choice.
Renouncing US citizenship is a common move for this exact reason. This article just happens to have drawn an arbitrary line in the wealth of people who renounce US citizenship and made a headline out of the wealthier subset. The wealthy are also more like to have dual-citizenship but relocate to another country, so they’d be over represented in this set.
Some are "accidental Americans" like UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, born in the US, who discovered as a US citizen he had to pay capital gains taxes when he sold his London apartment. Australia requires its parliamentarians to have only Australian citizenship and some discovered for the same reason they were not eligible.
Furthermore, the burden of FATCA is sufficiently onerous that many banks etc. just refuse to deal with it and close the accounts of US persons. A number of long-time expat Americans, e.g. in Germany, have renounced their citizenship because they are unable to function due to this.
Furthermore, the burden of FATCA is sufficiently onerous that many banks etc. just refuse to deal with it and close the accounts of US persons. A number of long-time expat Americans, e.g. in Germany, have renounced their citizenship because they are unable to function due to this.
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson aka Boris Johnson is not as clumsy as his haircut makes him look to be. The guy keeps fit, doesn't look like Rambo but he is fit with a bit a sticky build. He is intelligent, he survived the muddy waters of politics, affairs and is prime minister.
Of course he always knew he is American dual citizen, a person like him does not handle an apartment sale himself, he has handlers and advisors. And he was in a very high income bracket for a while and it's safe to say he fell into a us taxable segment before that sale.
He is a showman and this was just the event where the tax bill was too high and he said "no more".
Boris Johnson is a Ted Cruz who knew the appeal of a Donald Trump.
hah yes this. the buffoon act really makes people underestimate- and if i dare say, sympathize with him. but he's much more competent (at getting what he wants) than people give him credit for.
That's what he wants you to think. In reality he really is just a buffoon.
Nobody will ever know, not even him!
Good read: Kim Philby as a Real Case of Indeterminacy of Radical Interpretation:
http://polatulet.narod.ru/dvc/ddbs/dennett_breaking.html#ch_...
Good read: Kim Philby as a Real Case of Indeterminacy of Radical Interpretation:
http://polatulet.narod.ru/dvc/ddbs/dennett_breaking.html#ch_...
He might be smarter than he looks, but he certainly isn't "fit".
Apologies, I did not mean the English expression of fit, rather the status of sports fitness levels, he's doing ok for his age.
I don't think that term applies either. He appears to be quite overweight.
In the military I saw people get kicked out for being “overweight.” Interestingly, they could run circles around you for 12 miles, throw you several yards, or otherwise destroy a Physical Fitness Test.
Looking “overweight” can be quite deceiving.
Looking “overweight” can be quite deceiving.
He's also not terribly organised or rule following. He probably just thought he could ignore the US tax and no one would notice. I'm not sure if he paid in the end or got around it by renouncing his citizenship?
Is it possible to operate using a business account in other countries? It's pretty cheap and easy to do in the USA.
Unfortunately if you have equity in the business, you'll get taxed. However, if you are only an employee, you get an exemption on something like $150,000 of income, housing, and other expenses. So as a US citizen, you can avoid taxes only by living outside the US, and being an employee of a non-US company. If anyone knows otherwise, please correct me as I'd greatly benefit!
Not to correct, but to affirm. [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_earned_income_exclusio...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_earned_income_exclusio...
nitpicking. You don't get out of taxes, you get out of paying US taxes (on earned income, you still have to pay capital gains).
But you still have to file US taxes. As an expat, you have more forms to fill out.
AND the bigger challenges are banking. You still have to find a bank willing to open an account for you, and good luck getting more complex financial services.
But you still have to file US taxes. As an expat, you have more forms to fill out.
AND the bigger challenges are banking. You still have to find a bank willing to open an account for you, and good luck getting more complex financial services.
Yeah, it is in theory, but even small businesses incorporated abroad with US persons involved in them put huge reporting burdens on the US person. Form 5471 and friends make this stuff look straightforward. Most of the time I find my frustration isn’t about how much money I am paying in taxes, but just how much dull and confusing paperwork I have to understand. Even trained professionals who spend their whole lives doing this get confused by US tax compliance for people who have international lives. The US needs to realise how important the a positive reputation in its expat community would be for its soft power.
I've always wondered of it was possible to move to the UK by starting a business that required a UK presence and using that as a reason for an indefinate residence permit?
Nope. You cannot really sponsor yourself working for you own company, that would be such an obvious loophole.
I've been living here 3.5 years, 2 on a YM visa, 1.5 on a work visa. Unfortunately, my 2 years on YM don't even count towards the 5 required to get ILR. You can build up an entire life here & all it takes is for your work visa to be disappeared and then you have 1 month notice to gtfo the country otherwise you're "overstaying".
After 3.5 years somewhere you definitely build up "a life" there, but the UK gov offers no protections at all. Until you hit that 5 year mark they don't give a toss about you.
I've been living here 3.5 years, 2 on a YM visa, 1.5 on a work visa. Unfortunately, my 2 years on YM don't even count towards the 5 required to get ILR. You can build up an entire life here & all it takes is for your work visa to be disappeared and then you have 1 month notice to gtfo the country otherwise you're "overstaying".
After 3.5 years somewhere you definitely build up "a life" there, but the UK gov offers no protections at all. Until you hit that 5 year mark they don't give a toss about you.
Yes. The UK has pretty open borders for anyone willing to put effort in.
As long as you mean 5 years of uninterrupted work visa (YM doesn't count) where losing your visa forces to to leave w/ 1 month's notice, then sure, they have "open borders".
I assume you mean a business bank account for the banking?
Challenging, and potentially criminal.
If you have any management authority over the bank accounts owned by the business, then those accounts fall under FACTA.
Hell, if you are even just an employee, but can sign on the bank account, then you have to report it to the US authorities.
So a 'business account' doesn't get you out of the US required reporting.
Also, the implication is that you'd use this for 'day to day' banking. Using a business's funds (a business bank account) to cover personal spending is typically criminal (embezzlement).
So not a solution.
And this doesn't solve the other problems, like pension savings or other financial products.
Challenging, and potentially criminal.
If you have any management authority over the bank accounts owned by the business, then those accounts fall under FACTA.
Hell, if you are even just an employee, but can sign on the bank account, then you have to report it to the US authorities.
So a 'business account' doesn't get you out of the US required reporting.
Also, the implication is that you'd use this for 'day to day' banking. Using a business's funds (a business bank account) to cover personal spending is typically criminal (embezzlement).
So not a solution.
And this doesn't solve the other problems, like pension savings or other financial products.
Well Germany also requires that you surrender other citizenships when you get a German citizenship, unless you are a German dual citizen through ancestry.
This is incorrect.
Imprecise but not incorrect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nationality_law#Dual_(o...
I heard rumours that this law is basically to put a thorn in the eye of Turkish immigrants minus what the EU does not allow. Is there any truth in this?
Yes, and Turkey moved to nullify this by creating a system in which if you are otherwise a valid Turkish citizen that has to give up because of a requirement from a foreign country like this, you can get on a special status in which you cannot vote, but have all the other privileges of Turkish citizenship. That status is not citizenship in theory, but practically you have everything as usual, and can participate in the Turkish social security, retirement, health system and all else. It’s called the blue card.
This sounds similar to the Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card. Can any Indian nationals comment?
I think the main difference is that Turkey does not require you to relinquish your Turkish citizenship if you get another, while India does. In a way TRs system is entirely to help out with an issue a foreign country creates, while India’s is primarily an attempt to recover from an own goal — assuming you believe people having multiple citizenships is a good thing.
It got really awkward when the large minority of turkish Germans living in Germany with turkish citizenry overwhelmingly voted for Erdogan in the last elections. I'd really wish Germany was able to adopt an immigrant culture similar to the US, but the current situation is a semi-failure, but neither side of the political spectrum seems to be able to implement good policies to solve the issues.
First import uneducated Turkish workers for unskilled jobs so they will work for cheap, and then discriminate against educated workers because you think it's being Turkish (rather than education) that makes the previously-arrived workers have trouble integrating. So Germany and Europe in general keeps getting more Erdogan voters while others just don't want to deal with racism and immigrate to other places like US or Canada.
If you really want to fix this, you have change the main demographic of Turkish immigrants, probably by offering a clear immigration path to students who come to Europe for graduate programs or such.
If you really want to fix this, you have change the main demographic of Turkish immigrants, probably by offering a clear immigration path to students who come to Europe for graduate programs or such.
> the current situation is a semi-failure
WOuld you care to expand on that? I'm curious what in particular about the US immigrant culture you would like to see adopted, and what about the current German system prevents that culture from developing.
WOuld you care to expand on that? I'm curious what in particular about the US immigrant culture you would like to see adopted, and what about the current German system prevents that culture from developing.
Sadly I can't find good polls on some of the things I want to talk about, so this has a bit of an anecdotal note. But I've been living in a majority turkish subdistrict for most of my life, and have many german-turkish friends, as well as friends and family teaching in schools with many turkish and arab descendant kids. But first some facts: "People with a migration background", which includes their children and children's children even if they were born here, make up 21% of the population. Half of these hold german citizenship. 40% of all kids have a migrant background. 12.5% of people with a migrant background are so called Spätaussiedler, ethnic germans who migrated to Germany after WWII.[1]
Attidudes of Germans at large towards immigration are very mixed: 71% think that it leads to higher strain on the welfare state, 69% think it leads to conflicts with "the natives", 63% think it leads to problems in schools. At the same time, 67% think that it makes life in Germany more interesting, and 64% think immigration is important to combat the effects of our quickly aging population.[2]
Now on to what I think is the biggest failure, which is now very hard to correct: Many second or third generation immigrants still don't feel like they are "real" germans. There's still a strong class divide, which in urban areas also leads to segregated communities. They are underrepresented in politics (except for the Spätaussiedler) and white collar jobs, and there is whitespread employment discrimination, especially against people of turkish, arab and african descent.[3] While the current government declared a "welcome culture" in 2015 during the refugee crisis, in the heads of the majority of the population, there's still a very clear picture of how a "real german" looks and acts. - While close to half of the population admits that "Islam is a part of german culture now", they will still ask Ahmed "where he is really from", and rather hire Oscar over him.
This also partially explains why Erdogan is so popular among turkish Germans: They feel disrespected here, so the vision (delusion) of Erdogan making Turkey into this powerful and strong state is very appealing to them.
I do think things are getting slightly better, but there's a long way to go, and there's also risks of things turning really sour: Anti-democratic ideology is relatively widespread among the muslim minority, in contrast to the rest of the population, their level of religiousness stays about the same, the current money policy of the ECB leads to an enormous rise in living cost in urban areas, and the divide between rich and poor in Germany is increasing.
[1]https://www.bpb.de/nachschlagen/zahlen-und-fakten/soziale-si...
[2] https://mediendienst-integration.de/integration/einstellunge...
[3] https://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/2018/vi18-104.pdf
Attidudes of Germans at large towards immigration are very mixed: 71% think that it leads to higher strain on the welfare state, 69% think it leads to conflicts with "the natives", 63% think it leads to problems in schools. At the same time, 67% think that it makes life in Germany more interesting, and 64% think immigration is important to combat the effects of our quickly aging population.[2]
Now on to what I think is the biggest failure, which is now very hard to correct: Many second or third generation immigrants still don't feel like they are "real" germans. There's still a strong class divide, which in urban areas also leads to segregated communities. They are underrepresented in politics (except for the Spätaussiedler) and white collar jobs, and there is whitespread employment discrimination, especially against people of turkish, arab and african descent.[3] While the current government declared a "welcome culture" in 2015 during the refugee crisis, in the heads of the majority of the population, there's still a very clear picture of how a "real german" looks and acts. - While close to half of the population admits that "Islam is a part of german culture now", they will still ask Ahmed "where he is really from", and rather hire Oscar over him.
This also partially explains why Erdogan is so popular among turkish Germans: They feel disrespected here, so the vision (delusion) of Erdogan making Turkey into this powerful and strong state is very appealing to them.
I do think things are getting slightly better, but there's a long way to go, and there's also risks of things turning really sour: Anti-democratic ideology is relatively widespread among the muslim minority, in contrast to the rest of the population, their level of religiousness stays about the same, the current money policy of the ECB leads to an enormous rise in living cost in urban areas, and the divide between rich and poor in Germany is increasing.
[1]https://www.bpb.de/nachschlagen/zahlen-und-fakten/soziale-si...
[2] https://mediendienst-integration.de/integration/einstellunge...
[3] https://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/2018/vi18-104.pdf
@markdown: +9000 for this answer! I agree: It is very thoughtful.
I re-read this part a few times: << Attidudes of Germans at large towards immigration are very mixed: 71% think that it leads to higher strain on the welfare state, 69% think it leads to conflicts with "the natives", 63% think it leads to problems in schools. At the same time, 67% think that it makes life in Germany more interesting, and 64% think immigration is important to combat the effects of our quickly aging population.[2] >>
At first blush, I think "Oh come on people, pick one side or the other!" Then I think again: Each one can be independently true. Taken as a whole, these opinions appear conflicted. This is the reality of large scale immigration: It is complex is any society.
When I think about immigration, I try to separate high-income/-education/-skill from the low- counterpart. Germany should be doing everything possible to attract the high side. It's a great place to raise a family.
I re-read this part a few times: << Attidudes of Germans at large towards immigration are very mixed: 71% think that it leads to higher strain on the welfare state, 69% think it leads to conflicts with "the natives", 63% think it leads to problems in schools. At the same time, 67% think that it makes life in Germany more interesting, and 64% think immigration is important to combat the effects of our quickly aging population.[2] >>
At first blush, I think "Oh come on people, pick one side or the other!" Then I think again: Each one can be independently true. Taken as a whole, these opinions appear conflicted. This is the reality of large scale immigration: It is complex is any society.
When I think about immigration, I try to separate high-income/-education/-skill from the low- counterpart. Germany should be doing everything possible to attract the high side. It's a great place to raise a family.
Thank you for taking the time to explain your point of view.
I suppose this is just the unavoidable result of too many immigrants arriving around the same time. And when they have their own communities, they have no reason to integrate into the host culture.
Has Germany done anything to reduce the number of new immigrants coming in?
I suppose this is just the unavoidable result of too many immigrants arriving around the same time. And when they have their own communities, they have no reason to integrate into the host culture.
Has Germany done anything to reduce the number of new immigrants coming in?
The parent sounds authoritative, but its source, Wikipedia, isn't. It's not much better than a comment on HN.
Also, I assume there is a special exception for Jewish families of German descent who were unfairly stripped of their nationality during the National Socialist period (early 1940s). There is a programme to help people re-gain their citizenship. I've read a few long-form jounalism articles (in English) about people who don't speak German
and are not German residents applying under this programme.
Pretty much anyone whose citizenship was revoked by the Nazi government, or descendants of those victims who would have had citizenship today had it not been for the Nazi government, can apply to have the citizenship reinstated. Numerically it's likely mostly Jewish families in Israel and the US, but it applies to all of the Nazis' German victims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nationality_law#Victims...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nationality_law#Victims...
Or your other citizenships are solely from the European Union. (You can be a dual/tri/quad EU|German citizen)
Doesn't the Netherlands do this as well? As a Canadian I think not allowing dual citizenship might solve a lot of issues with both the very rich and the very poor.
> surrendering US citizenship is a logical choice
Only because of US laws. I have two citizenships, but one residency. In most Western countries, being a resident is associated with healthcare and pension, so having one residency is logical.
Only because of US laws. I have two citizenships, but one residency. In most Western countries, being a resident is associated with healthcare and pension, so having one residency is logical.
> Only because of US laws. I have two citizenships, but one residency.
U.S. citizenship carries extraterritorial benefits. For example, we're pretty good at getting our people out of thorny situations, even at great national expense. If someone isn't paying to support that, it makes sense to force a revocation decision.
U.S. citizenship carries extraterritorial benefits. For example, we're pretty good at getting our people out of thorny situations, even at great national expense. If someone isn't paying to support that, it makes sense to force a revocation decision.
Many Americans seem to believe that, but it doesn't actually seem to be the case. For instance, when Yemen was falling apart, countries like China, India, Pakistan, Russia, and Indonesia all worked hard to evacuate their citizens, many using their military to do so[1]. The U.S. response was to tell American citizens they were on their own[2]. The U.S. embassy even recommended that Americans seek assistance from India if they needed to evacuate[3].
So if anything, I'd say America is worse than other countries at getting citizens out of bad situations. But there seems to be a tendency for people to not look at what other countries actually do and just assume that America is the best.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32162364 [2] https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/21/washington-to-americans... [3] https://twitter.com/SMedia4/status/585286801968893954
So if anything, I'd say America is worse than other countries at getting citizens out of bad situations. But there seems to be a tendency for people to not look at what other countries actually do and just assume that America is the best.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32162364 [2] https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/21/washington-to-americans... [3] https://twitter.com/SMedia4/status/585286801968893954
Don’t forget the poor responses at home to disasters natural and unnatural. Katrina was only 15 years ago, and that was before mainstream myths of omnipotence were broken. Such a travesty. Such a failed social contract — esp. for common security, welfare, and wellbeing.
> I'd say America is worse than other countries at getting citizens out of bad situations
I last saw data through the UNDP about ten years ago. It's very possible that the situation has degraded. And no country has 100% coverage, far from it. At the time, however, the U.S. government was exceedingly good at exfiltrating citizens from disaster zones. Granted, it has had more experience doing this because, well, empire.
The situation was starker for low-level assistance, in which many diplomatic missions will not get involved.
I last saw data through the UNDP about ten years ago. It's very possible that the situation has degraded. And no country has 100% coverage, far from it. At the time, however, the U.S. government was exceedingly good at exfiltrating citizens from disaster zones. Granted, it has had more experience doing this because, well, empire.
The situation was starker for low-level assistance, in which many diplomatic missions will not get involved.
If you come across the data please share it, it would be worthwhile seeing what exactly they're talking about and if the data matches your memory of it. I didn't come across it in my (very limited) search, but I did find this analysis that suggests U.S. citizens fare worse than citizens of many other countries[1]:
> According to a database compiled by New America from public sources, since 2001, American hostages taken captive by terrorist, militant, and pirate groups have been more than twice as likely to remain in captivity, die in captivity, or be murdered by their captors as the average Western hostage. Forty-three percent of American hostages died, remain in captivity, or remain unaccounted for, compared to an average of 19 percent for all Westerners.
[1] https://www.newamerica.org/international-security/policy-pap...
> According to a database compiled by New America from public sources, since 2001, American hostages taken captive by terrorist, militant, and pirate groups have been more than twice as likely to remain in captivity, die in captivity, or be murdered by their captors as the average Western hostage. Forty-three percent of American hostages died, remain in captivity, or remain unaccounted for, compared to an average of 19 percent for all Westerners.
[1] https://www.newamerica.org/international-security/policy-pap...
It's because USA has a policy of not paying any ransoms or making concessions to the hostage takers (unlike most other western countries). I'd assume this might also result in Americans being targeted less often than people from other countries (I haven't see any data on this).
The US is also very good at issuing travel warnings that are very explicit about the risks [1] I am not aware of the DoS ever going from 'its all ok' to 'see ya, y'all on your own now!' Anyone that was in Yemen prior to 2/15 had (or should have) a very good idea of where things were going.
[1] https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/...
[1] https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/...
[deleted]
UK embassies are also quite good about publishing updates on their websites.
At the early onset of the Covid-19 pandemic started, many countries sent special planes to repatriate their citizens either from the Wuhan region, or from other countries where they got stuck because of a sudden borders close. The US also organized flights, but I was personally very shocked to learn that they charged close to $1,200 for those trips, although it was clearly a case of force majeure. That was the moment I thought that Americans don't actually get their tax money worth in terms of government support, while being subject to taxation on their worldwide income even when not residing in the US.
To be clear, most if not all countries chartered special flights for free. Later on, some more flights were organized with the help of airline companies, but those were paid.
To be clear, most if not all countries chartered special flights for free. Later on, some more flights were organized with the help of airline companies, but those were paid.
At least Germany, which came up upthread, also charged those they helped return: https://www.euronews.com/2020/12/28/german-passengers-sue-go...
Apparently they charge the price of a one way Economy ticket. The difference in cost was paid by the Government. Seems quite reasonable to me.
Apparently they charge the price of a one way Economy ticket. The difference in cost was paid by the Government. Seems quite reasonable to me.
Likewise in China, I had Italian friends whose embassy helped arrange covid vaccines for Italians living there while the US embassy was no help whatsoever to their citizens. At least among expats, the US embassy has the reputation to be the least helpful embassy to their citizens.
As a US citizen, you are less likely to be tortured in a foreign prison. This book is a good read:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Acid_Gambit
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Acid_Gambit
(you seem to have been shadow banned, might be working asking dang why - I couldn't see anything in your history from a mod)
If non-PC thoughts are against the rules, post those rules in the acceptable use policy. I don't think it's hateful to critically discuss BLM. I do think it's hateful to say "x group is bad", but that's not what I read.
I believe BLM to be led by Marxists and that is backed up by objective evidence. I'm not sure why that's controversial. It's also objectively true that George Floyd had a criminal record. Again, I'm not sure why that's controversial. One can be very socially aware and also recognize those two facts. It is indeed problematic that Floyd pointed a gun at the abdomen of a woman whom he thought was pregnant during a home invasion robbery, or that he had significant amounts of narcotics in his system when he died. That doesn't make his death justifiable, it's just the real life complications of a real life case (which tend not to be overly clean). When did we get afraid of objective facts?
EDIT: Downvoters: explain why. Simple Q. What is it about facts you don't like?
I believe BLM to be led by Marxists and that is backed up by objective evidence. I'm not sure why that's controversial. It's also objectively true that George Floyd had a criminal record. Again, I'm not sure why that's controversial. One can be very socially aware and also recognize those two facts. It is indeed problematic that Floyd pointed a gun at the abdomen of a woman whom he thought was pregnant during a home invasion robbery, or that he had significant amounts of narcotics in his system when he died. That doesn't make his death justifiable, it's just the real life complications of a real life case (which tend not to be overly clean). When did we get afraid of objective facts?
EDIT: Downvoters: explain why. Simple Q. What is it about facts you don't like?
It doesn't take Einstein to understand that George Floyd could just be anyone in that scenario.
To focus on his personal history is simply irrelevant and is in disrespect of the judicial branch and the principle on the separation of powers. No one is contending the truthfulness of his criminal history, but he didn't die as a result of that, he died as a result of the disregard of human life by an officer of the executive branch.
Even if you don't like BLM, which is okay, it stretches too far to claim it a terrorist group.
Please don't just reduce it to 'facts you don't like', facts won't get you banned, but those claims the OP made are more than that.
To focus on his personal history is simply irrelevant and is in disrespect of the judicial branch and the principle on the separation of powers. No one is contending the truthfulness of his criminal history, but he didn't die as a result of that, he died as a result of the disregard of human life by an officer of the executive branch.
Even if you don't like BLM, which is okay, it stretches too far to claim it a terrorist group.
Please don't just reduce it to 'facts you don't like', facts won't get you banned, but those claims the OP made are more than that.
I don't have the feature to downvote you, but it I did then I would. Here's why: what is an "objective fact"?
Are those statements you made relevant to the death of George Floyd? The answer is no.
He was a criminal who made mistakes - for which he served his time. Stating your "objective facts" appear to diverge attention elsewhere and in particular to paint George as the guilty party that warranted the police response that he received. Did he deserve that?
He begged for his life while being kneed to the throat for over 10 minutes. He then died on the floor by a police offer. There's some objective facts for you pal.
Further, there was no "real life complications of a real life case" he was literally murdered. That's the point and is why the police office is serving jail time!
Please take some time to consider what and WHY you wrote what you did. Do you think that he deserved death? Why?
Are those statements you made relevant to the death of George Floyd? The answer is no.
He was a criminal who made mistakes - for which he served his time. Stating your "objective facts" appear to diverge attention elsewhere and in particular to paint George as the guilty party that warranted the police response that he received. Did he deserve that?
He begged for his life while being kneed to the throat for over 10 minutes. He then died on the floor by a police offer. There's some objective facts for you pal.
Further, there was no "real life complications of a real life case" he was literally murdered. That's the point and is why the police office is serving jail time!
Please take some time to consider what and WHY you wrote what you did. Do you think that he deserved death? Why?
> Are those statements you made relevant to the death of George Floyd? The answer is no.
They were in the judgement of a coroner. Not enough to mean murder wasn't called for, but it's obtuse to not observe that Floyd's drug load was past the lethal level for most people.
> Stating your "objective facts" appear to diverge attention elsewhere and in particular to paint George as the guilty party that warranted a cold bold death sentence. Did he that?
No, and when did I argue that? I never said he deserved to die. He should have been transported to jail and then tried for his crimes, not killed.
> He begged for his life while being kneed to the throat. There's an objective fact for you pal.
Anyone with any experience with corrections finds statements by suspects like this laughable at best. With him it was perhaps true (you physiologically can't speak if you can't breathe, but I don't deny he was killed). With someone else, it was because their wrists hurt because of those shiny bracelets they earned by committing crimes. I believe essentially nothing that a suspect says about their comfort, because the majority are accomplished liars. This is what they do. It is literally their occupation. I also believe Floyd was killed. Can you fit those two concepts in your head?
> Further, there was no "real life complications of a real life case" he was literally murdered. That's the point and is why the police office is serving jail time!
His drug consumption was absolutely a complication with his trial. Why would you think it wasn't?
> Please take some time to consider what and WHY you wrote what you did. Do you think that he deserved death? Why?
I don't think he deserved to die. I wrote what I wrote to illustrate that Real Life is hardly clean. There's nothing class-, race-, or otherwise-based in what I wrote. Objective facts.
They were in the judgement of a coroner. Not enough to mean murder wasn't called for, but it's obtuse to not observe that Floyd's drug load was past the lethal level for most people.
> Stating your "objective facts" appear to diverge attention elsewhere and in particular to paint George as the guilty party that warranted a cold bold death sentence. Did he that?
No, and when did I argue that? I never said he deserved to die. He should have been transported to jail and then tried for his crimes, not killed.
> He begged for his life while being kneed to the throat. There's an objective fact for you pal.
Anyone with any experience with corrections finds statements by suspects like this laughable at best. With him it was perhaps true (you physiologically can't speak if you can't breathe, but I don't deny he was killed). With someone else, it was because their wrists hurt because of those shiny bracelets they earned by committing crimes. I believe essentially nothing that a suspect says about their comfort, because the majority are accomplished liars. This is what they do. It is literally their occupation. I also believe Floyd was killed. Can you fit those two concepts in your head?
> Further, there was no "real life complications of a real life case" he was literally murdered. That's the point and is why the police office is serving jail time!
His drug consumption was absolutely a complication with his trial. Why would you think it wasn't?
> Please take some time to consider what and WHY you wrote what you did. Do you think that he deserved death? Why?
I don't think he deserved to die. I wrote what I wrote to illustrate that Real Life is hardly clean. There's nothing class-, race-, or otherwise-based in what I wrote. Objective facts.
So you agree he was killed and didn't deserve to die. You are just annoyed that such a "fuss" was made about it, and that he was black has nothing to do with it.
Got it.
Got it.
The Unites States needs a dose of Marxism. Things are bad here for the working class. We have more than enough resources to do better and bring our society up to par with other developed countries.
Marxism is crap. It doesn't address the flaws in monetary systems leading to collective short term thinking.
Ha, nooooo. Your deluded worldview has been proven false. Kindly bugger off with it.
Every single developed country practices capitalism. Every one. The Scandinavians practice Democratic Socialism precisely because they have a surplus to spend on social programs (largely due to a combination of oil money and a lack of a semi-permanent underclass), none of which sounds particularly socialist to me.
Every single developed country practices capitalism. Every one. The Scandinavians practice Democratic Socialism precisely because they have a surplus to spend on social programs (largely due to a combination of oil money and a lack of a semi-permanent underclass), none of which sounds particularly socialist to me.
>we're pretty good at getting our people out of thorny situations, even at great national expense. If someone isn't paying to support that, it makes sense to force a revocation decision.
how many American get into that kind of shit storm? it seem like this benefit isn't worth the taxes that you pay
how many American get into that kind of shit storm? it seem like this benefit isn't worth the taxes that you pay
How many Americans actually end up with real tax liability from a foreign country? Probably need to answer that before we determine whether it's "worth it" because my understanding is most people don't.
At least from those expats posting here, the issue isn’t the actual real tax liability, but the burden of having to show the IRS every year that you don’t think you have a tax liability.
And the fact that most UK finace institutions wont deal with you makes opening ISA's etc v difficult
That’s a hassle but it seems hyperbolic to call it absurdly cruel and the other things people here are saying.
It is awful - I'm glad you never had to deal with. It provides little revenue and causes a huge amount of hassle and makes living overseas way more difficult.
American expat here - agreed with the other expats - it’s the filing that really, really sucks. Like really. Breaking the difficulty down in terms of priority.
1 - just trying to work through what all might possibly be owed and not owed to US as well as the country(ies) one operates in.
2 - Identifying through which paperwork to declare it, while also ensuring income / business reporting is copacetic with the tax regime of the country that same is actually earned in. As a business owner, (many operating overseas are looking after a business) I have to complete corporate accounts (which costs $$$$ and takes forever) before I can file American income tax for the same accounting year.
3 - the value of the tax liability itself is a distant third in terms of hassle than any of the above. (I’ll include in this bucket the fact that Americans are taxed on income earned abroad, putting us at enormous disadvantage for work opportunities vis—a-vis peer expats who come from other countries)
1 - just trying to work through what all might possibly be owed and not owed to US as well as the country(ies) one operates in.
2 - Identifying through which paperwork to declare it, while also ensuring income / business reporting is copacetic with the tax regime of the country that same is actually earned in. As a business owner, (many operating overseas are looking after a business) I have to complete corporate accounts (which costs $$$$ and takes forever) before I can file American income tax for the same accounting year.
3 - the value of the tax liability itself is a distant third in terms of hassle than any of the above. (I’ll include in this bucket the fact that Americans are taxed on income earned abroad, putting us at enormous disadvantage for work opportunities vis—a-vis peer expats who come from other countries)
Why doesn't the US reduce it to a flat tax? Say, $1000/year to send you your election ballot, and evacuate you in case something goes horribly wrong.
The US government doesn't work like that. There isn't some logical person making logical decisions.
For this change to occur, many senators and representatives would have to be directly and personally incentivized to make the change.
They aren't.
For this change to occur, many senators and representatives would have to be directly and personally incentivized to make the change.
They aren't.
And how about they make this service opt-in. I was born in the US but I have had nothing to do with the place for 95% of my life and I don't want their help. Why must I fill out their paperwork every year or pay them money to opt-out (which I can't even do anymore because of the current backlog).
Perhaps the revenue is not very great but if there were a blanket exception I think you’d suddenly find a lot more people gaming then system to not technically be US residents and thereby escape large amounts of liability.
Most countries don’t tax citizens living abroad on foreign revenue, and just forget about them once they become residents elsewhere (unless they still have income from their country of origin).
[deleted]
And by most here, you mean every single country in the world apart from the US, Eritrea, Myanmar and Hungary.
That's pretty easily dealt with through residency thresholds. We do this in the UK, counting people resident for tax purposes if they spend more than so many days in the UK in a given year. I would be very surprised if the US doesn't already do this to determine non-citizens tax status.
That's how state taxes are dealt with in the US and a number of people go to great pains to make sure they stay exactly the number of days in some high-tax state that lets them skirt liability. I'd be surprised if similar things didn't happen in Europe but I don't pretend to be as familiar with what goes on there.
If you are not allowed to open financial accounts for investments in the country you are living in because they do not want to have information sent to the IRS, you'll think differently.
I know at least one country that will not let you even open a bank account if you have a green card or US citizenship. Actually, even if you're a foreigner living in the US (student, H-1, etc), that country will not let you open a bank account - even if you are a citizen of that country. The rule is simple: If you have ties to the US that could require you reporting your bank account to the IRS, then you cannot open a bank account.
I know at least one country that will not let you even open a bank account if you have a green card or US citizenship. Actually, even if you're a foreigner living in the US (student, H-1, etc), that country will not let you open a bank account - even if you are a citizen of that country. The rule is simple: If you have ties to the US that could require you reporting your bank account to the IRS, then you cannot open a bank account.
I don't understand how the IRS can know what you do in foreign banks
First hand experience (US citizen): When you open a bank account overseas, they ask you if you are subject to FACTA (US passport or green card). Then you are given a multi-lingual form that explains all about FACTA, and require you submit your passport (for scan/photocopy) and to sign a form acknowledging the bank will end your account details annually (at least!) to the US IRS. I confirm this is true multiple times -- different banks, different countries. Surprisingly, even ones where the service is 100% non-English (read/write/speak!), they will still bring out multi-linguage forms and do a bunch of pointing to confirm.
Funny story: Overseas, I can remember going through anti-money laundering training. The week after, I went to open a new bank account. When I told them I was a US citizen, the account rep said -- without missing a beat -- "Do you want to report?" Jeez. That question alone is probably enough to get that bank into trouble! Obviously, that person failed their own FACTA training...
Funny story: Overseas, I can remember going through anti-money laundering training. The week after, I went to open a new bank account. When I told them I was a US citizen, the account rep said -- without missing a beat -- "Do you want to report?" Jeez. That question alone is probably enough to get that bank into trouble! Obviously, that person failed their own FACTA training...
Because they apparently require foreign banks to report it.
Now, how do they actually enforce that supposed "obligation"? I do not know.
But it doesn’t surprise me. The US has already enforced it’s laws on foreign companies' dealing abroad merely because they had used dollars in their transactions.
Now, how do they actually enforce that supposed "obligation"? I do not know.
But it doesn’t surprise me. The US has already enforced it’s laws on foreign companies' dealing abroad merely because they had used dollars in their transactions.
They haven’t enforced it yet (for the banks, for non-compliant Americans, they have). But they’ve signed treaties with many governments to allow this, and they threaten foreign banks with fines related to any US dealings.
They say you play ball or lose access to the US banking system, which is pretty much a death sentence.
The IRS requires you to report all bank accounts you have in foreign countries when you file taxes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance...
> FATCA also requires such persons to report their non-U.S. financial assets annually to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on form 8938, which is in addition to the older and further redundant requirement to report them annually to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) on form 114 (also known as 'FBAR')
What's ridiculous is that it also "requires" foreign banks to report details of accounts by US holders - even if the bank has no relation to the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance...
> FATCA also requires such persons to report their non-U.S. financial assets annually to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on form 8938, which is in addition to the older and further redundant requirement to report them annually to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) on form 114 (also known as 'FBAR')
What's ridiculous is that it also "requires" foreign banks to report details of accounts by US holders - even if the bank has no relation to the US.
Find me a bank in 2021 that doesn't clear US dollars. That is the big gotcha. This is one of the ways that the long arm of the US Treasury applies force is by restricting US dollar clearing if any banks in a jurisdiction refuse to comply. Literally: They would say to a developing country: Get that local bank in order, or we will not allow any one in your country (central bank or businesses) to trade or clear any US dollar transactions. Remember: Most US dollars overseas move by SWIFT transactions.
It generally doesn't, but the law says you have to tell it or face prison time.
And there are some instances of information sharing via tax treaty, but I haven't seen exact details on how it works.
And there are some instances of information sharing via tax treaty, but I haven't seen exact details on how it works.
Which country is this?
I'm aware of restrictions in France and Pakistan from coworkers on H-1 visas from those countries. Note that both probably do provide a way to open it if you go through some lengthy "exceptions" process, but it wasn't worth the hassle.
Basically, ever since the IRS required you to report foreign accounts (2007 or 2008), some countries have made it harder for people based in the US to get accounts. They see it as an indirect means to collect intelligence by the US.
Basically, ever since the IRS required you to report foreign accounts (2007 or 2008), some countries have made it harder for people based in the US to get accounts. They see it as an indirect means to collect intelligence by the US.
Well there are a handful right here on this comment section. I'm a Brit and have known maybe half a dozen US citizens reasonably well here in London over the years, at least two of which renounced US citizenship for tax reasons while I knew them. It's definitely a thing.
According to another post you do not owe tax on income below $108k so that’s probably not going to affect most filers, though I’m sure an anomalously high number of HN users are earning six-figure salaries.
That is only applies to so-called earned income, you still owe taxes on all of your other income. And many people earn considerably more than $108k.
Furthermore, even under tax treaties, it is not uncommon for some part of your income to be double taxed due to differences in recognition and classification of income and foreign taxes paid. Americans often have to pay more taxes than if they only had to pay taxes in either country separately.
And this is on top of the onerous reporting overhead and other difficulties.
Furthermore, even under tax treaties, it is not uncommon for some part of your income to be double taxed due to differences in recognition and classification of income and foreign taxes paid. Americans often have to pay more taxes than if they only had to pay taxes in either country separately.
And this is on top of the onerous reporting overhead and other difficulties.
Many people earn a lot more than that. I agree. Where I disagree is that I don't see what's unjust about asking them to pay tax for a system they benefit from.
Faulty assumption; Americans who live abroad do not benefit from the US system: social security/disability/retirement, health programs, military, public infrastructure etc. pp. is provided by the country where they live.
Does the country where they live run the embassy too and I just never knew about it?
[deleted]
Oh well, that's alright then. As long as it's only successful people getting screwed I suppose we're good.
Well, wehther it's alright or not, whether it is accurately characterized as 'getting screwed' or not, at least it's only the ones who can most afford it.
No, this hits the upper to middle professional class the hardest. One percenters are handled by a staff with white gloves as always.
Strange that we're all commenting on an article concerning specifically the ultra wealthy renouncing citizenship to reduce tax liability then
Perhaps you are being sarcastic in the parent comment, but United States "screwing" its successful people and forcing them out means that these successful people will no longer contribute to United States, but to their new home country instead.
Without their contributions the Unites States will be less successful, thereby "screwing" everybody in it.
This trend within United States is especially ironic and alarming considering that United States gained its success specifically by giving home to persecuted people from other countries with capacity for success. Conversely, other countries, some obvious examples being Nazi Germany and USSR, were not successful specifically because they forced out their successful people.
Without their contributions the Unites States will be less successful, thereby "screwing" everybody in it.
This trend within United States is especially ironic and alarming considering that United States gained its success specifically by giving home to persecuted people from other countries with capacity for success. Conversely, other countries, some obvious examples being Nazi Germany and USSR, were not successful specifically because they forced out their successful people.
I mean, am I supposed to feel sorry for high-income people because they have to pay tax to continue to benefit from US citizenship and US embassies? I don't really, nor do I consider it getting "screwed." I think it is only fair that well-to-do expats should pay into the system like everybody else. If they don't want to, I welcome them to take the article's lead and give up their citizenship.
If it was just getting taxed up to a point I think you'd have a reasonable argument, but looking at the torturous nonsense they have to go through to the point where even US banks think the costs of having them as clients isn't worth the hassle, it's clearly way beyond that. Also, many of these people don't actually owe any tax at all, or relatively small amounts, but it's ridiculously difficult and costly to prove it.
I mean what is the objective? Raise tax revenue from ex-pats, or drive them out of US citizenship? What's actually happening seems to be the latter, not so much the former. Surely that's a serious policy failure.
I mean what is the objective? Raise tax revenue from ex-pats, or drive them out of US citizenship? What's actually happening seems to be the latter, not so much the former. Surely that's a serious policy failure.
After not living in the US for a few years, your view of the US is quite disillusioned. They don’t want you to come back and live there. The need to keep everyone thinking the US is the best. /s
The thing is, many of these expats aren't even "paying into the system" anyway. I have to file US taxes but can deduct what I pay in taxes in my country of residency, which is higher than I'd pay in the US; as a result, I don't actually owe any US taxes. But, like another commenter said, I have to pay thousands to someone to figure out how to even file all this stuff. In other words, some local accountant is making bank, not the IRS.
I could probably be convinced to get on board with an initiative to make filing easier, but this is a different argument than I was responding to.
From what I’ve read, the US is possibly one of the worst countries to have to file taxes with, paperwork-wise.
And that’s for the simple scenario of someone actually living in the US.
But is also is another issue altogether. How US citizens can bear with this and the lobbying that spawned it is beyond me.
And that’s for the simple scenario of someone actually living in the US.
But is also is another issue altogether. How US citizens can bear with this and the lobbying that spawned it is beyond me.
The people who have complicated taxes also usually have complex income sources and generally higher incomes. If you just get your wage the tax forms are relatively straightforward. Being international complicates things but you'll notice people are talking about the headaches associated with running their businesses, capital gains, etc.
Serious question, what benefits do you think US citizenship and US embassies provide over and beyond what pretty much every other western country provides to their citizens?
As multiple people have explained, preparing the required paperwork each year is a major expense and hassle, even if you do not owe any tax.
Also, if you are technical enough to frequent this web site and you think $108K is a lot of money, you are being underpaid.
> Also, if you are technical enough to frequent this web site and you think $108K is a lot of money, you are being underpaid.
Sorry, what? Exactly how much technical ability does it take to frequent a website? You have the strangest delusion I've seen on HN and that's saying something.
Sorry, what? Exactly how much technical ability does it take to frequent a website? You have the strangest delusion I've seen on HN and that's saying something.
I just ran a search and found the median US personal income is around $35k. $108k may be low for a tech job but most people don't have high paying tech jobs.
Googling, just the first one that comes up, suggests that median income for "software developer" in USA is $86,523. Meaning half make less, half make more. $100K is the 75th percentile, meaning 75% make less. (https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/Software-Developer-Sal...)
Some people that work in especially high-paid sub-industries have a mistaken idea of what typical "technical enough to frequent this web site" (?!) people make.
And even if most software developers did make over $100K, it could still be a lot of money? The median income in USA as a whole looks to be about $52K, with $100K being about 83rd percentile (83% of USA makes less than $100K).
Some people that work in especially high-paid sub-industries have a mistaken idea of what typical "technical enough to frequent this web site" (?!) people make.
And even if most software developers did make over $100K, it could still be a lot of money? The median income in USA as a whole looks to be about $52K, with $100K being about 83rd percentile (83% of USA makes less than $100K).
I don’t think that zip recruiter data is accurate, apparently the average engineer salary in Sunnyvale is 100k, where I can see new grad salaries are above 120k and do that doesn’t take into account bonuses or stocks.
We can all quibble over the exact numbers but I think the point is well taken: not only does a six-figure salary place you pretty high among American workers overall, but it also puts you in a better spot than many developers. Not everybody gets to work at prestigious tech companies
> Also, if you are technical enough to frequent this web site and you think $108K is a lot of money, you are being underpaid.
Most software engineers in Europe, aside from freelancers, and probably the world, don’t make anywhere near $108k.
Most software engineers in Europe, aside from freelancers, and probably the world, don’t make anywhere near $108k.
I’m self employed, and had a green card, I paid the accountant 700€ to file the US tax form and paid a couple thousands dollars in taxes because I hit the minimum tax rate.
The US may or may not have paid $2M to get Warmbier our of North Korea
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/north-kore...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/north-kore...
He died, so it didn't do much help.
What difference does that make? Is the ambulance worthless because not everybody it picks up lives?
The value I assign to "my government will ensure repatriation of my corpse" is $0.
Which is not what happened, given that he died after he got home. Again, not seeing how this is different than blaming the ambulance because you died in the ER.
Too little too late makes all the difference in the world.
What taxes? When I lived outside the US my wife and I would have to make more than ~$300k USD per year before any US tax obligation kicked in. And that was living in a lower tax jurisdiction.
In a country with higher taxes and a tax treaty you could earn $1M per year and never pay the IRS a dime.
In a country with higher taxes and a tax treaty you could earn $1M per year and never pay the IRS a dime.
That’s only relevant to a tiny percentage of American immigrants who travel/work in conflict zones and unfriendly countries.
It could even be said Americans are more at risk in those countries for being American and no other reason. So for people outside of that there won’t be any benefit.
It could even be said Americans are more at risk in those countries for being American and no other reason. So for people outside of that there won’t be any benefit.
> only relevant to a tiny percentage of American immigrants who travel/work in conflict zones and unfriendly countries
I know a (thankfully small) handful of cases in which Americans' kids were arrested in a friendly country. The State Department provided invaluable support. (Recommendations on legal counsel, prudent next steps, relevant authorities' phone numbers...nothing nefarious, just context and support.)
I am under no illusion that I, with my resources, would get that sort of access. But it exists, and probably benefits U.S. international business concerns. Since this article concerns itself with rich overseas Americans, I think it's relevant.
I know a (thankfully small) handful of cases in which Americans' kids were arrested in a friendly country. The State Department provided invaluable support. (Recommendations on legal counsel, prudent next steps, relevant authorities' phone numbers...nothing nefarious, just context and support.)
I am under no illusion that I, with my resources, would get that sort of access. But it exists, and probably benefits U.S. international business concerns. Since this article concerns itself with rich overseas Americans, I think it's relevant.
I think you're under the impression this doesn't happen with other countries too. That's the job of embassies. Obviously the State Department has more funding and resources, but that's really only relevant to how big of a trouble you got yourself into.
One thing the US has is more bargaining power to force early release of some people accused of crimes (like Liangelo Ball in China, Anne Sacoolas in UK). That's significant leverage, but again: most people will never find themselves in that situation. But even then it's not like other countries will not imprison you if you're American.
One thing the US has is more bargaining power to force early release of some people accused of crimes (like Liangelo Ball in China, Anne Sacoolas in UK). That's significant leverage, but again: most people will never find themselves in that situation. But even then it's not like other countries will not imprison you if you're American.
> Since this article concerns itself with rich overseas Americans, I think it's relevant
Not many millionaires are getting arrested in general, due to the availability of lawyers and so on.
The US support might be very relevant for a war reported captured by ISIS.
But most millionaires are not going to be in those locations and/or able to afford good private security.
Not many millionaires are getting arrested in general, due to the availability of lawyers and so on.
The US support might be very relevant for a war reported captured by ISIS.
But most millionaires are not going to be in those locations and/or able to afford good private security.
Ok, but they're also not very sympathetic. I don't feel sorry for anybody who can afford private security that he has to pay if he wants to hang on to the benefits of US citizenship.
So?
So "so?" is my reaction to wailing about their being taxed.
They're not wailing, they're leaving for better service elsewhere.
Great, then everybody's happy. What's the problem?
> U.S. citizenship carries extraterritorial benefits. For example, we're pretty good at getting our people out of thorny situations, even at great national expense.
Are we? I’ve been told to use my other passport if ever in a situation like that. Are there any stats that support either case?
Are we? I’ve been told to use my other passport if ever in a situation like that. Are there any stats that support either case?
That's nothing unique american and quite standard for western democracies. Way more important than military force is legal support and diplomatic weight, to get you extradited, if you end up in your host countries legal system for whatever reason, which is the way more likely thing to happen.
It's not unheard of, that dual citizens renounce their more or less vaguely authoritarian citizenship when it's too dangerous to live or visit there with a dual one. Since then the other state has no obligation to intervene and is even blocked from reigning into the affairs of another nation.
It's not unheard of, that dual citizens renounce their more or less vaguely authoritarian citizenship when it's too dangerous to live or visit there with a dual one. Since then the other state has no obligation to intervene and is even blocked from reigning into the affairs of another nation.
I needed to laugh really hard at this because it encapulates the US citizen's mind so perfectly. Partly because the US lives in my head rent free.
Is it because every single US diplomatic relation is in one way or other tied to the military?
If a jibali captures an operator then fair enough. The US is very preachy about their soldiers. But for a civilian to think about that as a benefit is just wild.
Is it because every single US diplomatic relation is in one way or other tied to the military?
If a jibali captures an operator then fair enough. The US is very preachy about their soldiers. But for a civilian to think about that as a benefit is just wild.
"cīvis rōmānus sum"
It's not like the US made this up. The Roman citizens had this protection too as they wandered the globe.
It's not like the US made this up. The Roman citizens had this protection too as they wandered the globe.
Yes, but we can actually make it happen (relatively quickly).
Last year, Navy SEALs from the Navy's Special Mission Unit parachuted in the dead of night to save a missionary. When's the last time the armed forces of Brunei did that? Or DRC? Or Azerbaijan? The answer is never. Intent != capability. I'm sure Paraguay wishes they could put commandos on the ground anywhere in the world in hours, but the fact is that they can't.
Being American is like having an American Express Card: membership has its privileges.
Last year, Navy SEALs from the Navy's Special Mission Unit parachuted in the dead of night to save a missionary. When's the last time the armed forces of Brunei did that? Or DRC? Or Azerbaijan? The answer is never. Intent != capability. I'm sure Paraguay wishes they could put commandos on the ground anywhere in the world in hours, but the fact is that they can't.
Being American is like having an American Express Card: membership has its privileges.
The Romans might not have been able to air drop centurians into battle overnight, so yeah, you might wind up a martyr for Rome, but when they eventually did get there vengance was a mofo.
> For example, we're pretty good at getting our people out of thorny situations
How thorny a situation has to be? Because I'm aware of a case when an American couldn't bring his own children to the states because his ex wife didn't consent to issue them American passports. Petitions, letters to the embassy and his congressman, nothing helped. A 3rd world country his ex wife's a citizen of had no issue with consents, it just issued passports allowing her to get the kids and leave the country they were residing in.
How thorny a situation has to be? Because I'm aware of a case when an American couldn't bring his own children to the states because his ex wife didn't consent to issue them American passports. Petitions, letters to the embassy and his congressman, nothing helped. A 3rd world country his ex wife's a citizen of had no issue with consents, it just issued passports allowing her to get the kids and leave the country they were residing in.
Most Western countries have some level of extraterritorial benefits. At least in the UK they're nominally "paid for" by the cost of the passport. If you're a dual citizen with another country you have no obligation to get a passport - but shouldn't expect help without one.
Just a warning: this isn't necessarily true. They'll only do it if there is a political benefit. Otherwise there is no duty to assist you.
> They'll only do it if there is a political benefit.
This is also how it works with other countries (e.g., Russia). They'll help if they get something out of it, or won't give a damn otherwise.
This is also how it works with other countries (e.g., Russia). They'll help if they get something out of it, or won't give a damn otherwise.
Most countries grant those same benefits.
But they don't have a MEU sitting off conflict zones waiting to leap into action. The United States will literally send the Marines to save a citizen. A person from, say, Ecuador probably doesn't enjoy the same amount of risk coverage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_expeditionary_unit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_expeditionary_unit
You've been watching too many movies, I'm afraid. The reality is (and it happened in Yemen recently) that the US will just shrug and tell you to go ask some other country for help. No MEUs set foot in Yemen when things went south there.
The last I heard, the Houthis let the Americans go.
Navy SEALs from the Navy SMU parachuted into Africa in the dead of night to save a missionary kidnapped from a known conflict zone, killing 6 of 7 combatants (one wonders if they let the last guy go to spread Fear amongst his fellows). Perhaps some of you had different experiences (and/or perhaps the State Department really, really wanted you to leave), but that doesn't erase the rescue of Americans such as this man:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nigeria_hostage_rescue
We sent the best of the best in to save him. Not the JV team, the varsity. Before you whine, ask yourselves if perhaps there was some motive to telling you that nobody would help you if you didn't leave. Maybe they were trying to manage their risk.
Navy SEALs from the Navy SMU parachuted into Africa in the dead of night to save a missionary kidnapped from a known conflict zone, killing 6 of 7 combatants (one wonders if they let the last guy go to spread Fear amongst his fellows). Perhaps some of you had different experiences (and/or perhaps the State Department really, really wanted you to leave), but that doesn't erase the rescue of Americans such as this man:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nigeria_hostage_rescue
We sent the best of the best in to save him. Not the JV team, the varsity. Before you whine, ask yourselves if perhaps there was some motive to telling you that nobody would help you if you didn't leave. Maybe they were trying to manage their risk.
> to save a missionary
That could have been just Trump pandering to his base.
Moreover, from your link:
> Additionally American aid worker Jeffery Woodke was kidnapped from Abalak in October 2016, and is believed to be held in Mali.
How come no SEALs have parachuted to rescue Jeffery yet, huh? Reinforces my theory that it was just election-time pandering by Trump.
You're telling me that the US will do that for every Tom, Dick and Harry who gets caught by some $EVILDOER anywhere on this planet? Fat chance!
> The last I heard, the Houthis let the Americans go.
But how did they get out? Who picked them up?
That could have been just Trump pandering to his base.
Moreover, from your link:
> Additionally American aid worker Jeffery Woodke was kidnapped from Abalak in October 2016, and is believed to be held in Mali.
How come no SEALs have parachuted to rescue Jeffery yet, huh? Reinforces my theory that it was just election-time pandering by Trump.
You're telling me that the US will do that for every Tom, Dick and Harry who gets caught by some $EVILDOER anywhere on this planet? Fat chance!
> The last I heard, the Houthis let the Americans go.
But how did they get out? Who picked them up?
>That could have been just Trump pandering to his base.
That's pretty weak, you have to admit. Wouldn't Obama send the same men in to save a citizen? I think he would. This is undeniably what our military is for, what those special mission units are for, and what those operators live for. They went in to do God's Work, and luckily this time it worked with no Good Guy casualties. Why would you doubt this?
> How come no SEALs have parachuted to rescue Jeffery yet, huh? Reinforces my theory that it was just election-time pandering by Trump.
Maybe because they don't have actionable intel to find and fix him? Maybe because the Bad Guys weren't so stupid as to use something that would show up on our various SIGINT collection platforms? It's not always a great big Trumpian conspiracy.
> But how did they get out? Who picked them up?
The Omani military, our allies. I suspect more than one person on that flight didn't have an Omani passport.
That's pretty weak, you have to admit. Wouldn't Obama send the same men in to save a citizen? I think he would. This is undeniably what our military is for, what those special mission units are for, and what those operators live for. They went in to do God's Work, and luckily this time it worked with no Good Guy casualties. Why would you doubt this?
> How come no SEALs have parachuted to rescue Jeffery yet, huh? Reinforces my theory that it was just election-time pandering by Trump.
Maybe because they don't have actionable intel to find and fix him? Maybe because the Bad Guys weren't so stupid as to use something that would show up on our various SIGINT collection platforms? It's not always a great big Trumpian conspiracy.
> But how did they get out? Who picked them up?
The Omani military, our allies. I suspect more than one person on that flight didn't have an Omani passport.
I remember being in Kenya before the election that followed post-election violence previously (scores dead). Ambassador said point blank, "You need to take care of yourselves. We only have a handful of marines and they'll be spending their time protecting or destroying classified documents."
Exactly. This myth that the USA bails its citizens out of sketchy situations needs to die.
Perhaps that was their way of trying to get you to leave so they didn't have to send anyone after you.
No, they absolutely will not. I won't go into details but I can tell you from personal experience this is unequivocally false. The USA will in most cases do exactly nothing for their citizens in distress. Even the local US embassies will refuse to get involved in almost all cases.
You know who did get involved in our situation when I was with a group of mixed citizens from USA, UK, EU etc...? The UK and Denmark. France, the USA and Germany all did nothing at all.
This myth that the USA will save citizens from any situation needs to die. It's untrue and dangerous since it encourages Americans to do stupid things because they are convinced the Marines or Seals will come save them.
You know who did get involved in our situation when I was with a group of mixed citizens from USA, UK, EU etc...? The UK and Denmark. France, the USA and Germany all did nothing at all.
This myth that the USA will save citizens from any situation needs to die. It's untrue and dangerous since it encourages Americans to do stupid things because they are convinced the Marines or Seals will come save them.
Except the Marines and/or SEALs do come to save people. Perhaps there are political complications you aren't mentioning. Perhaps you got into trouble in a nation with a halfway-functioning government (so diplomacy trumps men with rifles).
It is provably true the US does send armed forces in to save citizens, and it is obviously true that many other countries simply lack the ability to do so. That isn't a license to be stupid, but it is a differentiator between countries with true power projection capabilities and those who don't have the same.
It is provably true the US does send armed forces in to save citizens, and it is obviously true that many other countries simply lack the ability to do so. That isn't a license to be stupid, but it is a differentiator between countries with true power projection capabilities and those who don't have the same.
You're so unbelievably naive I have to think you are trolling. Or 10 years old. I honestly can't tell which.
> U.S. citizenship carries extraterritorial benefits.
Many citizenship's include extraterritorial benefits, but few of them are as aggressive with foreign income.
It's a fair question which countries approaches are the most effective, but this is hardly unique.
Many citizenship's include extraterritorial benefits, but few of them are as aggressive with foreign income.
It's a fair question which countries approaches are the most effective, but this is hardly unique.
Since the US has preformed drone strikes on its own citizens, I think it's pretty clear that "some citizens are more equal than others" ?
Personal anecdote: my brother was robbed in Mexico of everything including shoes. He went to the embassy for assistance. He was give some McDonalds coupons and told to use them when he got across the border. He even asked them to check against police records, knowing that he had an outstanding misdemeanor warrant. No go. No help. At least one of the persons at the embassy was honest and told him that embassies only help government officials, rich, or public figures. Fortunately he eventually found a way to get in contact with us (much, much later). In the end the way to get back is to just try to push through a border gate so that you'll get arrested. Then they'll be forced to confirm your identity.
So what about American citizens who legally don’t pay any federal taxes? Like, say, children? Should they receive “extraterritorial benefits”?
What circumstances are those? There are a ton of homeless Americans where I live and the embassy doesn't do anything until they commit a crime as far as I know.
> What circumstances are those?
If there is an act of war or natural disaster, the U.S. is good at extracting its citizens. There is also a decent precedent of negotiating to release people taken hostage or held prisoner by unfriendly regimes. (Or causing a fuss when Americans are harmed in a friendly country.) That, in turn, has a deterrent effect.
For Americans with access to legal counsel and the State Department, the benefits expand. Rich, overseas Americans thus present a unique free-rider problem.
If there is an act of war or natural disaster, the U.S. is good at extracting its citizens. There is also a decent precedent of negotiating to release people taken hostage or held prisoner by unfriendly regimes. (Or causing a fuss when Americans are harmed in a friendly country.) That, in turn, has a deterrent effect.
For Americans with access to legal counsel and the State Department, the benefits expand. Rich, overseas Americans thus present a unique free-rider problem.
For example, Israel goes to extremely great lengths extracting its citizens in trouble (search Operation Entebbe), and no, they don't charge you any taxes if you reside permanently abroad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Entebbe
Such a gruesome story: Kenyan sources supported Israel, and in the aftermath of the operation, Idi Amin issued orders to retaliate and slaughter several hundred Kenyans then present in Uganda. There were 245 Kenyans in Uganda killed and 3,000 fled.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idi_Amin
Amin first escaped to Libya, where he stayed until 1980, and ultimately settled in Saudi Arabia, where the Saudi royal family allowed him sanctuary and paid him a generous subsidy in return for staying out of politics.[18] Amin lived for a number of years on the top two floors of the Novotel Hotel on Palestine Road in Jeddah.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455590/
Movie The Last King of Scotland is Based on the events of the brutal Ugandan dictator Idi Amin's regime as seen by his personal physician during the 1970s.
Such a gruesome story: Kenyan sources supported Israel, and in the aftermath of the operation, Idi Amin issued orders to retaliate and slaughter several hundred Kenyans then present in Uganda. There were 245 Kenyans in Uganda killed and 3,000 fled.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idi_Amin
Amin first escaped to Libya, where he stayed until 1980, and ultimately settled in Saudi Arabia, where the Saudi royal family allowed him sanctuary and paid him a generous subsidy in return for staying out of politics.[18] Amin lived for a number of years on the top two floors of the Novotel Hotel on Palestine Road in Jeddah.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455590/
Movie The Last King of Scotland is Based on the events of the brutal Ugandan dictator Idi Amin's regime as seen by his personal physician during the 1970s.
You don't have to go that far back. See the recent Surfside tragedy. Israel sent an elite rescue team and set up relief centers to assist displaced persons, regardless if they were Israeli or not.
“Casualties have been disproportionately Jewish because about a third of Surfside residents are Jewish.”
> U.S. citizenship carries extraterritorial benefits.
Since we are stepping out of playing world police, we have stopped doing that FYI in the past 15-20 years incrementally so. This ain't the late 20th century anymore.
Since we are stepping out of playing world police, we have stopped doing that FYI in the past 15-20 years incrementally so. This ain't the late 20th century anymore.
The US can’t be bothered to help its citizens living abroad with vaccinations even though it has expiring doses. Other countries have done so, AND without the tax compliance demands.
So let’s drop this extraterritorial benefits stuff. No benefit the US has provided has been worth the worry, anger, and tedium of trying to be tax compliant in a situation where it’s impossible to be truly compliant (thanks to how irreconcilable foreign arrangements often are to US tax law).
https://americanexpatfinance.com/news/item/782-state-dept-re...
So let’s drop this extraterritorial benefits stuff. No benefit the US has provided has been worth the worry, anger, and tedium of trying to be tax compliant in a situation where it’s impossible to be truly compliant (thanks to how irreconcilable foreign arrangements often are to US tax law).
https://americanexpatfinance.com/news/item/782-state-dept-re...
> U.S. citizenship carries extraterritorial benefits.
Not sure about actual benefits. The US passports is one of the worst when it comes to travel. Many countries have stricter entry rules only for US citizen, or require at least a higher Visa fee in comparison to other Western nations or outright don't allow US citizens entry at all. I found my Austrian passport to be actually extremely beneficial. Most powerful passport is still from Singapore when it comes to extraterritorial benefits.
In terms of getting people out of thorny situations, countries which don't have citizenship based tax laws are also pretty good at that, if not even better, because the US has in fact a lot of scarred relations with other nations whereas other Western nations have it easier to get a country pull some strings in order to get their people out.
Not sure about actual benefits. The US passports is one of the worst when it comes to travel. Many countries have stricter entry rules only for US citizen, or require at least a higher Visa fee in comparison to other Western nations or outright don't allow US citizens entry at all. I found my Austrian passport to be actually extremely beneficial. Most powerful passport is still from Singapore when it comes to extraterritorial benefits.
In terms of getting people out of thorny situations, countries which don't have citizenship based tax laws are also pretty good at that, if not even better, because the US has in fact a lot of scarred relations with other nations whereas other Western nations have it easier to get a country pull some strings in order to get their people out.
> The US passports is one of the worst when it comes to travel
100% wrong! US passport is ranked 7th best in the world. You need very few visas and get waved through customs faster than visitors from most other countries.
* https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/2021/07/07/where-does-...
* https://www.thenationalnews.com/business/2021/07/07/the-worl...
100% wrong! US passport is ranked 7th best in the world. You need very few visas and get waved through customs faster than visitors from most other countries.
* https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/2021/07/07/where-does-...
* https://www.thenationalnews.com/business/2021/07/07/the-worl...
"One of the worst" maybe if you're comparing to the EU, but definitely not in a wider global sense.
> "One of the worst" maybe if you're comparing to the EU, but definitely not in a wider global sense.
Definitely. But comparing the benefits of US citizenship to that of, say, Venezuela or Tchad would be pointless, now, wouldn’t it?
Definitely. But comparing the benefits of US citizenship to that of, say, Venezuela or Tchad would be pointless, now, wouldn’t it?
Why would that be pointless?
Mostly because the gap in international political reach and leverage, respective economic situations and means are too huge for there to be a point.
Also because I suspect the population here to likely be mostly from Western countries. Cf dang’s comment[1] stating that 50% of the userbase is from the US
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25787770
Also because I suspect the population here to likely be mostly from Western countries. Cf dang’s comment[1] stating that 50% of the userbase is from the US
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25787770
Will I think it is relevant because the fact that the passport holder benefits from all that makes it one of the best by any reasonable standard, unless you arbitrarily ignore all the worse ones and then say it's the "worst of the best," so to speak.
And I would argue that it’s like comparing professional Formula 1 drivers’ performance to that of professional kart racers. Or a five stars hotel to a motel by the highway.
But I see your point, and we’ll probably have to settle on agreeing to disagree.
But I see your point, and we’ll probably have to settle on agreeing to disagree.
Residency, at least for overseas tax purposes, generally is presumed to transfer whenever (and wherever) you spend 180 days of a year somewhere, so you by definition can't have multiple residencies (unlike nationalities); you can have residency rights/permits in multiple places, but once you become resident somewhere you cease to be resident at your previous country of residence.
Can you live without residence? Say I'm sailing around the world. My home country could be thousands of miles away, pretty much unreachable in a practical way. Should that still count as my residence?
> Can you live without residence?
ding You've just discovered another hidden trick that the ultra-wealthy use to minimize their tax-burdens: in each year, they travel and ensure they do not reside long enough in each country to be considered resident fir tax purposes.
ding You've just discovered another hidden trick that the ultra-wealthy use to minimize their tax-burdens: in each year, they travel and ensure they do not reside long enough in each country to be considered resident fir tax purposes.
It's not really a trick if you don't use the services, especially healthcare or education system. I'd be all in for nomad tax at something sane like 10% or some trade pact that you can get healthcare and edu for free anywhere in the world (already the case within EU).
In some countries Canada for example if you don't take a new residence they will treat your last residence as your residence.
India is the opposite. You can work on a boat get paid in India and owe no taxes.
India is the opposite. You can work on a boat get paid in India and owe no taxes.
> In most Western countries, being a resident is associated with healthcare and pension
Then that's the difference.
American citizens can collect Social Security while residing in foreign countries. Same with VA benefits.
Then that's the difference.
American citizens can collect Social Security while residing in foreign countries. Same with VA benefits.
I think you misunderstood. Most (EU) pension systems also payout worldwide.
It is the 'putting in' part which depends on residency.
It is the 'putting in' part which depends on residency.
They have one criterion for putting in and a different one for paying out?
That would seem.....unfair.
That would seem.....unfair.
What do you mean? You pay in the country you live/work in. You get back your pension wherever you are, from every country you've worked for in your life. Sounds pretty fair to me
One should actually be a bit careful to state such intent. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Amendment_(immigration)
A pertinent example of the kinds of people this amendment was apparently intended to bar from entry to the US:
"One example discussed was Kenneth Dart of Dart Container, who had become a citizen of Belize and then attempted to obtain a diplomatic visa to serve as Belize's new consul in Sarasota, Florida."
"One example discussed was Kenneth Dart of Dart Container, who had become a citizen of Belize and then attempted to obtain a diplomatic visa to serve as Belize's new consul in Sarasota, Florida."
Still seems relatively safe:
> The Department of Homeland Security has stated that they cannot obtain the information required to enforce the amendment unless the former U.S. citizen "affirmatively admit[s]" his or her reasons for renouncing citizenship, and so from 2002 to 2015, only two people were denied entry to the United States on the grounds of the amendment.
> The Department of Homeland Security has stated that they cannot obtain the information required to enforce the amendment unless the former U.S. citizen "affirmatively admit[s]" his or her reasons for renouncing citizenship, and so from 2002 to 2015, only two people were denied entry to the United States on the grounds of the amendment.
From that article:
"The wording of the statute is embarrassing. How can an alien renounce U.S. citizenship? In what capacity would said alien do so officially? One assumes that a court of law would find the language incoherent and unenforceable ... This is the way we legislate at 5 o'clock in the morning 4 days before adjournment."
Nice to see lawmakers falling to the specter of trying to get that commit in for the next release, along with the rest of us.
"The wording of the statute is embarrassing. How can an alien renounce U.S. citizenship? In what capacity would said alien do so officially? One assumes that a court of law would find the language incoherent and unenforceable ... This is the way we legislate at 5 o'clock in the morning 4 days before adjournment."
Nice to see lawmakers falling to the specter of trying to get that commit in for the next release, along with the rest of us.
One could actually say they push code, although "code" in this context means law.
If you dig through legislation it begins to look like a Git repository, with patches adding and removing parts of the content and branches that if successful generate their own patches as well.
Legal documents aren't code, but they do share many of the same principles and constraints - GIGO applies to both programs and contracts...
Legal documents aren't code, but they do share many of the same principles and constraints - GIGO applies to both programs and contracts...
The article is not drawing an arbitrary line:
> The IRS publishes a quarterly list of the names of people who have renounced their citizenship or given up their green cards, but it only includes people with global assets over $2 million
It may be an arbitrary line, but if so, it's the IRS drawing it.
> The IRS publishes a quarterly list of the names of people who have renounced their citizenship or given up their green cards, but it only includes people with global assets over $2 million
It may be an arbitrary line, but if so, it's the IRS drawing it.
It seems like no one actually knows what the list represents.
> Gibbons expected that the list would include only "a handful of the wealthiest of the wealthy" motivated solely by taxes; however, the people named in the list turned out to have a wide variety of motivations for emigrating from the U.S. and later giving up citizenship, and few were publicly known to be wealthy.[7]
> ...In contrast, Andrew Mitchel, a Connecticut tax lawyer interviewed by The Wall Street Journal for its reports on Americans giving up citizenship, states that the list is required to include all former citizens. [15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarterly_Publication_of_Indiv...
> Gibbons expected that the list would include only "a handful of the wealthiest of the wealthy" motivated solely by taxes; however, the people named in the list turned out to have a wide variety of motivations for emigrating from the U.S. and later giving up citizenship, and few were publicly known to be wealthy.[7]
> ...In contrast, Andrew Mitchel, a Connecticut tax lawyer interviewed by The Wall Street Journal for its reports on Americans giving up citizenship, states that the list is required to include all former citizens. [15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarterly_Publication_of_Indiv...
Why does the IRS publish the list of people renouncing citizenship? And why does it filter for people with global assets over $2M? I feel like I am missing something for this to make sense.
> The IRS publishes a quarterly list of the names of people who have renounced their citizenship or given up their green cards, but it only includes people with global assets over $2 million
This claim is total crap. The list includes all US citizens who renounce their citizenship, regardless of their net worth. [1]
You also cannot renounce your citizenship for tax dodging [2]:
> Persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware of the fact that renunciation of U.S. citizenship may have no effect on their U.S. tax or military service obligations (contact the Internal Revenue Service or U.S. Selective Service for more information).
So plan to become rich after renouncing (and without the IRS noticing).
[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/quarterly-publication-of-ind...
[2] https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-lega...
This claim is total crap. The list includes all US citizens who renounce their citizenship, regardless of their net worth. [1]
You also cannot renounce your citizenship for tax dodging [2]:
> Persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware of the fact that renunciation of U.S. citizenship may have no effect on their U.S. tax or military service obligations (contact the Internal Revenue Service or U.S. Selective Service for more information).
So plan to become rich after renouncing (and without the IRS noticing).
[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/quarterly-publication-of-ind...
[2] https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-lega...
> You also cannot renounce your citizenship for tax dodging
You just pay an exit tax, which is a percentage of your total wealth. The exit tax only applies if your total wealth is over 2 million (or less than that if you haven’t been filing properly).
https://americansoverseas.org/en/knowledge-centre/us-taxes-a...
You just pay an exit tax, which is a percentage of your total wealth. The exit tax only applies if your total wealth is over 2 million (or less than that if you haven’t been filing properly).
https://americansoverseas.org/en/knowledge-centre/us-taxes-a...
From [2]:
E. TAX & MILITARY OBLIGATIONS /NO ESCAPE FROM PROSECUTION
Persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware of the fact that renunciation of U.S. citizenship may have no effect on their U.S. tax or military service obligations (contact the Internal Revenue Service or U.S. Selective Service for more information). In addition, the act of renouncing U.S. citizenship does not allow persons to avoid possible prosecution for crimes which they may have committed or may commit in the future which violate United States law, or escape the repayment of financial obligations, including child support payments, previously incurred in the United States or incurred as United States citizens abroad.
I read that as saying "If you owe the IRS money already, renouncing your citizenship isn't going to get you out of paying it".
>So plan to become rich after renouncing (and without the IRS noticing).
Do you have any other sources that corroborate this? I've certainly never heard of the IRS coming after someone for money they've earned after renouncing citizenship, except perhaps in complex cases involving international companies.
E. TAX & MILITARY OBLIGATIONS /NO ESCAPE FROM PROSECUTION
Persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware of the fact that renunciation of U.S. citizenship may have no effect on their U.S. tax or military service obligations (contact the Internal Revenue Service or U.S. Selective Service for more information). In addition, the act of renouncing U.S. citizenship does not allow persons to avoid possible prosecution for crimes which they may have committed or may commit in the future which violate United States law, or escape the repayment of financial obligations, including child support payments, previously incurred in the United States or incurred as United States citizens abroad.
I read that as saying "If you owe the IRS money already, renouncing your citizenship isn't going to get you out of paying it".
>So plan to become rich after renouncing (and without the IRS noticing).
Do you have any other sources that corroborate this? I've certainly never heard of the IRS coming after someone for money they've earned after renouncing citizenship, except perhaps in complex cases involving international companies.
It's not quite arbitrary, it relates to having to pay an exit tax if your global net worth meets or exceeds 2 million.
You are correct in that the IRS chose this number.
You are correct in that the IRS chose this number.
There’s an irony in there somewhere given the original motivation for the “Boston Tea Party”.
No taxation without representation.
No taxation without representation.
Americans can vote overseas though
I know. I was referring to the comment about not feeling represented.
Not all of them and even if you are eligible to vote, some states make it nearly impossible to request a ballot. I’ve been removed from the registry multiple times and had to fill out an emergency ballot which didn’t even get counted in the 2016 election.
“No taxation without representation” does not imply “no representation without taxation”.
You are mistaken about the cause of the the Boston Tea Party. It was not about taxation without representation; it was about lack of taxation on tea from the East India corporation (which the King and his friends had a financial interest in). Many of the people protesting were owners in the local tea companies who's product was suddenly undercut because the King did not want to lose money on teas that were not selling in England.
The "no taxation without representation" was a slogan applied after the fact.
The "no taxation without representation" was a slogan applied after the fact.
> This article just happens to have drawn an arbitrary line in the wealth of people who renounce US citizenship and made a headline out of the wealthier subset. The wealthy are also more like to have dual-citizenship but relocate to another country, so they’d be over represented in this set.
Do you have any evidence of this?
Do you have any evidence of this?
[deleted]
Commonly called "click bait"
As a former American who lived abroad for about 11 years before renouncing, “cartoonishly cruel” is a pretty accurate description of the system. It’s even worse an American entrepreneur abroad because that makes things even more complicated.
I gave up jumping through the hoops in 2018 and the self-torture and renounced. I shared my story in case anyone is interested: https://larrysalibra.com/goodbye-usa/
I gave up jumping through the hoops in 2018 and the self-torture and renounced. I shared my story in case anyone is interested: https://larrysalibra.com/goodbye-usa/
I feel for you. My grandparents were apart of the Italian diaspora too, but they ended up in Canada. I often thought how difficult it would be if I had to choose because both countries are close to my heart. I’ve seen a number of American friends that are also duel citizens have to deal with the stress and unfairness that you have. I just feel really lucky and privileged that I don’t have to be in the position to choose even though I no longer live in Canada or Italy.
This was a good read. It's interesting that you decided to stay in HK after the protests/hostile takeover in 2020. My partner and friends all left HK for the UK, Australia, and Canada.
Thanks for reading!
The stay versus go debate in HK is always very interesting and one that has been going on for decades and will no doubt continue for many people.
The stay versus go debate in HK is always very interesting and one that has been going on for decades and will no doubt continue for many people.
I think it reached a point of no return. HK is still a very special place, but I see a lot of expats leaving for Singapore and Hkers leaving for overseas(BNO visa).
Singapore is more stable, but has even less freedoms than HK though.
Singapore is more stable, but has even less freedoms than HK though.
Depending on how bad it turns out I could see a wave of HK emigration to the UK.
Similar how a lot of Asians living in Africa (Uganda Kenya etc.) did in the 1970's, Without the ethnic cleansing aspect.
Similar how a lot of Asians living in Africa (Uganda Kenya etc.) did in the 1970's, Without the ethnic cleansing aspect.
This is already happening:
https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-nati...
My friend moved on that visa this week. Before Hong Kongers could get a BNO passport and it wasn’t particularly useful. The British government changed the conditions a year ago, and now it’s an open residence permit with a direct path to full citizenship.
There are at least a million people eligible for a BNO passport.
My friend moved on that visa this week. Before Hong Kongers could get a BNO passport and it wasn’t particularly useful. The British government changed the conditions a year ago, and now it’s an open residence permit with a direct path to full citizenship.
There are at least a million people eligible for a BNO passport.
> Singapore is more stable, but has even less freedoms than HK though
And it’s getting worse every day. I.e. recently they allowed “social distance enforcement officers” to get into your house to check that you’re not breaking any rules (for instance not having a party with more people than allowed by current regulations). No warrant needed. Non-compliance penalized by up to $10000 and/or jail time.
And it’s getting worse every day. I.e. recently they allowed “social distance enforcement officers” to get into your house to check that you’re not breaking any rules (for instance not having a party with more people than allowed by current regulations). No warrant needed. Non-compliance penalized by up to $10000 and/or jail time.
What's the tipping point for you? (Or possible lines in the sand?)
> By funding and participating in the system, we give the system legitimacy and only make the system stronger and the problems worse. Exiting is the high leverage and most effective option.
Very interesting indeed.
Very interesting indeed.
This is a really interesting read. I'm not a US citizen (AU & NZ) and don't face the same problems when being overseas, but I definitely relate to it not really feeling like home now that I've been away for several years.
Thankfully, it's not as hard to not pay AU/NZ taxes, it's still a little bit painful to prove you're not living there, but not even in the same league as the US.
Thankfully, it's not as hard to not pay AU/NZ taxes, it's still a little bit painful to prove you're not living there, but not even in the same league as the US.
Have you ever wondered if it weren't HK - where your exit country would be? Did Italy or any other place in the EU appeal to you at all? I hold dual US-UK, which means the EU isn't really an option for me anymore.
I think about it time to time. But haven’t come to any conclusions. Some things about Italy are great - the geography and people. And compared to the USA they treat me very well as an Italian abroad - they proactively send me a ballot to vote every year and even give overseas Italians our own representatives in the legislature.
I’ve certainly liked visiting a number of places in the EU - it might be fun to try to live there.
I’ve certainly liked visiting a number of places in the EU - it might be fun to try to live there.
I sort of wish I did this when I was younger. But I have kids, family, and extended family (on both sides) all in California. It makes it difficult to leave the state much less the country.
This. Living (even partially) overseas as someone who was born in the U.S. has so many disadvantages. The U.S. is the only country in the world that imposes global tax. Not only that, taxes are really complex and cost a fortune to file if you have overseas assets. Now, add to that that I cannot sign up for many bank accounts or other financial institutions because they don't accept U.S. customers - they don't want to deal with IRS filings either. It's not about tax evasion. It's just a huge pain being an American that owns property and spends a lot of time overseas.
At some point, depending on how much time you spent overseas and how many assets you own, the benefits of giving up US citizenship start to outweigh the cons. And it's better to do this soon than later because exit tax is a thing.
At some point, depending on how much time you spent overseas and how many assets you own, the benefits of giving up US citizenship start to outweigh the cons. And it's better to do this soon than later because exit tax is a thing.
Eritrea imposes a global tax as well.
Sure, I mean Eritrea and the US have the same power globally to enforce stuff right?
It's not like one is ~25% of the world's economy.
NK too
This was to close certain problematic tax avoidance issues. People were fleeting from the US to avoid paying taxes, but kept all the benefits, or hid the money off-shore.
The problem here is that they never raised the amount you must report, because in the past, 150k used to be a lot. Now that should be closer to 500k. But like the minimum wage and tax brackets, they haven't kept it up with inflation. Not in the way they needed to at least.
Unfortunately the main loss from US citizenship loss is voting and potentially travel to the US. But the wealthy influence politics by lobbying not voting.
Now if Citizenship was required to fund lobbying... wooh that would be a big hit for those abandoning the US.
The problem here is that they never raised the amount you must report, because in the past, 150k used to be a lot. Now that should be closer to 500k. But like the minimum wage and tax brackets, they haven't kept it up with inflation. Not in the way they needed to at least.
Unfortunately the main loss from US citizenship loss is voting and potentially travel to the US. But the wealthy influence politics by lobbying not voting.
Now if Citizenship was required to fund lobbying... wooh that would be a big hit for those abandoning the US.
Kept all what benefits? People who fled the US are now living under some other country's benefits, and pay taxes there instead.
Don't citizens of (almost) every other country in the world have the ability to go live abroad and keep all their benefits, whatever they are? I'm not following where Americans can actually get away with anything special.
Don't citizens of (almost) every other country in the world have the ability to go live abroad and keep all their benefits, whatever they are? I'm not following where Americans can actually get away with anything special.
> Don't citizens of (almost) every other country in the world have the ability to go live abroad and keep all their benefits, whatever they are?
aren’t those benefits just the travel-ability of their passport and the right to return?
I can only guess the US is such a great country you need to pay fir the right to return?
aren’t those benefits just the travel-ability of their passport and the right to return?
I can only guess the US is such a great country you need to pay fir the right to return?
> the main loss from US citizenship loss is voting and potentially travel to the US
There's a heavy to push to make this available to anyone regardless of citizenship, claiming that providing proof of identity will be burdensome. This is the same group that touted election fraud, russian interference and other false narratives for 4 years after the prior candidate lost.
There's a heavy to push to make this available to anyone regardless of citizenship, claiming that providing proof of identity will be burdensome. This is the same group that touted election fraud, russian interference and other false narratives for 4 years after the prior candidate lost.
Your representation is a bit exaggerated. The law simplistically simplifies to: if your income is above $X, then if your foreign tax payment $Y is less than the theoretical amount of tax you would have paid doing the same work under American Tax laws $Z, then please remit the difference ($Z-$Y) to the American government.
I've personally filled out the forms several times, for multiple periods (full and partial). However I do agree with you: sure it would be nice not to pay that fee, isn't that true of every expense in general?
It seems you either have a complicated personal situation or are in a jurisdiction that's purposefully set up to benefit/interact with the US in a tax advantagous way (aka a tax shelter, though that's going away - see general harmonization trends in EU, etc). Without delving into your personal situation, your personal tax situation should not impact your employment. Your citizenship might in certain highly regulated industries maybe. In the US you are not asked if you file joint or single on your tax return as part of the interview.
You are correct on renounciation. And worse, let's assume the renounciation fee is 1/3rd of the wealth, should your net worth be concentrated and iliquid (you own nothing but a paid off home) you now need to generate a transaction which you might not want to otherwise do (sentimental, bad timing, poor market prices for the asset or low liquidity).
If you have a complicated personal situation, you also hire professional help even if you reside purely domestically. Not fair to pin it all on the foreign taxation code.
I've personally filled out the forms several times, for multiple periods (full and partial). However I do agree with you: sure it would be nice not to pay that fee, isn't that true of every expense in general?
It seems you either have a complicated personal situation or are in a jurisdiction that's purposefully set up to benefit/interact with the US in a tax advantagous way (aka a tax shelter, though that's going away - see general harmonization trends in EU, etc). Without delving into your personal situation, your personal tax situation should not impact your employment. Your citizenship might in certain highly regulated industries maybe. In the US you are not asked if you file joint or single on your tax return as part of the interview.
You are correct on renounciation. And worse, let's assume the renounciation fee is 1/3rd of the wealth, should your net worth be concentrated and iliquid (you own nothing but a paid off home) you now need to generate a transaction which you might not want to otherwise do (sentimental, bad timing, poor market prices for the asset or low liquidity).
If you have a complicated personal situation, you also hire professional help even if you reside purely domestically. Not fair to pin it all on the foreign taxation code.
Some years are fine, just subtract the earned income exemption and move on. Others are nightmares.
Unlike in America, where there are accountants lurking around every corner, the tax code here is very "simple" (the vast majority of people probably never fill out a tax return in their lives). This means accountants charge like you're some sort of multi-millionaire business owner (since that's who their clients typically are). My last quote to get US & domestic taxes filed here when I was a grad student was $6,000 on a total income of <$50k. My situation wasn't that complicated - I had 2 part time jobs, won a competition prize for $20,000 and sold some stock.
I just did my best to file on my own. I probably got something wrong since it's crazy confusing. Prizes are tax-free here, but taxable in the US and not typically "earned income" but are maybe covered by the foreign income exemption or a dual taxation agreement (since I did have to report it to the taxman here, the tax rate was just zero). I literally couldn't afford to figure out how much tax I owed and to who - nevermind the taxes themselves!
Hopefully the IRS doesn't care enough to seize me the next time I visit my family. I tried my best, but that doesn't necessarily mean much in court. I think a lot of the problem is with the American tax code in general, but American accountants know nothing about the tax code here so I can't just ring up H&R Block and ask them to file over zoom (I've tried). Meanwhile, the only accountants who know about American taxes over here are specialist catering to the millionaire expat market. An hour of their time costs more than I earn in a week.
Unlike in America, where there are accountants lurking around every corner, the tax code here is very "simple" (the vast majority of people probably never fill out a tax return in their lives). This means accountants charge like you're some sort of multi-millionaire business owner (since that's who their clients typically are). My last quote to get US & domestic taxes filed here when I was a grad student was $6,000 on a total income of <$50k. My situation wasn't that complicated - I had 2 part time jobs, won a competition prize for $20,000 and sold some stock.
I just did my best to file on my own. I probably got something wrong since it's crazy confusing. Prizes are tax-free here, but taxable in the US and not typically "earned income" but are maybe covered by the foreign income exemption or a dual taxation agreement (since I did have to report it to the taxman here, the tax rate was just zero). I literally couldn't afford to figure out how much tax I owed and to who - nevermind the taxes themselves!
Hopefully the IRS doesn't care enough to seize me the next time I visit my family. I tried my best, but that doesn't necessarily mean much in court. I think a lot of the problem is with the American tax code in general, but American accountants know nothing about the tax code here so I can't just ring up H&R Block and ask them to file over zoom (I've tried). Meanwhile, the only accountants who know about American taxes over here are specialist catering to the millionaire expat market. An hour of their time costs more than I earn in a week.
> Prizes are tax-free here
Off-topic but: this always seemed like the most bizarre thing to me. What's the rationale? Why do governments want to incentivize people winning "prizes" over "honest work"?
(My HN engineer brain also wants to know what the distinction is that prevents companies from calling any payment for a one-time contract a "prize" for completing the work, but I'm sure there's some unsatisfying "you know it when you see it" or "laws are people not code" type answer.)
Off-topic but: this always seemed like the most bizarre thing to me. What's the rationale? Why do governments want to incentivize people winning "prizes" over "honest work"?
(My HN engineer brain also wants to know what the distinction is that prevents companies from calling any payment for a one-time contract a "prize" for completing the work, but I'm sure there's some unsatisfying "you know it when you see it" or "laws are people not code" type answer.)
I can answer for the UK - the system is designed so that most people don't explicitly interact with the tax system. The only people that need to do so is the self-employed, running a business, or very highest earners. For everybody else, they can take advantage of tax breaks without filling in any forms, just by opening the right bank accounts/pensions or getting certain services from their employer. When they qualify for benefits, like Child Benefit, it gets paid separately into their bank account.
A surprising number of tax benefits are possible this way - even the income tax deduction on charitable giving is done by getting the charity to do the paperwork instead of the individual taxpayer.
So when it comes to taxing something that isn't going to be a significant tax stream and would require people to fill in declarations, the solution is-- just don't tax it.
And the answer to your second question is, the payment would be "income" (defined as payment for completing work) and would fall under income tax. There's no exception in income tax for prizes because prizes aren't even income at all, as you don't work for them. But if you still tried it, it would fall under the General Anti-Abuse Rule.
A surprising number of tax benefits are possible this way - even the income tax deduction on charitable giving is done by getting the charity to do the paperwork instead of the individual taxpayer.
So when it comes to taxing something that isn't going to be a significant tax stream and would require people to fill in declarations, the solution is-- just don't tax it.
And the answer to your second question is, the payment would be "income" (defined as payment for completing work) and would fall under income tax. There's no exception in income tax for prizes because prizes aren't even income at all, as you don't work for them. But if you still tried it, it would fall under the General Anti-Abuse Rule.
Right, that makes sense. Thanks for the answer.
> And the answer to your second question is, the payment would be "income" (defined as payment for completing work) and would fall under income tax. There's no exception in income tax for prizes because prizes aren't even income at all, as you don't work for them.
Is it really so clear cut? I'm thinking of things like programming competitions -- in a sense you "work" to win a prize at one of those, don't you? So then what stops my employer calling all of my work as a programmer a programming competition? You could say "the competition organizers can't profit off of the work", but is that always true? Netflix could've legally profited off of the entries in the Netflix competition (even though they didn't), right? Similar for Kaggle contests. Would prizes from those count as taxable income? And even on something like a game show, they're profiting (or hoping to) from your participation/appearance.
> And the answer to your second question is, the payment would be "income" (defined as payment for completing work) and would fall under income tax. There's no exception in income tax for prizes because prizes aren't even income at all, as you don't work for them.
Is it really so clear cut? I'm thinking of things like programming competitions -- in a sense you "work" to win a prize at one of those, don't you? So then what stops my employer calling all of my work as a programmer a programming competition? You could say "the competition organizers can't profit off of the work", but is that always true? Netflix could've legally profited off of the entries in the Netflix competition (even though they didn't), right? Similar for Kaggle contests. Would prizes from those count as taxable income? And even on something like a game show, they're profiting (or hoping to) from your participation/appearance.
My company frequently has campaigns with prizes: we pay the taxes, so the prize looks "tax free" to the winners. It is just where the tax and paperwork burden is placed, on the payer or on the winner.
Is it taxed at (average?) income tax rates or VAT rates or what? Unless it's taxed at the highest marginal income tax rate, it seems like there's still at least some loophole potential.
My first instinct is that its the same logic as to why gambling gains are tax free: because otherwise the losses would be tax deductible.
Noob question -- what do you mean by harmonization trends in the EU? I couldn't quite understand from a google search or maybe even what exactly to search for.
This is a good read: https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2021/07/agree...
For example
Control/Command + F = "Ireland"
For example
Control/Command + F = "Ireland"
Harmonisation in the EU context is the convergence of standards and legal systems, in order to increase pan-european consistency and facilitate the free movement of people, goods, and services.
See « harmonisation of law » on the wiki.
See « harmonisation of law » on the wiki.
In case anyone is interested, the taxation on Americans abroad isn’t new but has its roots in the 1860s with the U.S. Civil War: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-04-24/end-th....
FATCA is annoying. I don’t mind taxes. I want the process to be fair, predictable, and not exceptional. It’s a travesty the United States has been most of my adult life a failed state, which makes the tax treatment insult to injury.
- American Abroad (on the pathway to naturalization in a new home)
FATCA is annoying. I don’t mind taxes. I want the process to be fair, predictable, and not exceptional. It’s a travesty the United States has been most of my adult life a failed state, which makes the tax treatment insult to injury.
- American Abroad (on the pathway to naturalization in a new home)
Calling the world's superpower and one of the wealthiest nations in the world a "failed state" is a bit ridiculous, is it not? Do words not have meaning anymore?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_state
I would say it has 3 of those 4 bullet points.
> Likewise, when a nation weakens and its standard of living declines, it introduces the possibility of total governmental collapse.
Standard of living
https://usafacts.org/state-of-the-union/standard-living/
So yeah, I personally don't call it a failed state, but I don't blame others that do if they're in those categories.
I would say it has 3 of those 4 bullet points.
> Likewise, when a nation weakens and its standard of living declines, it introduces the possibility of total governmental collapse.
Standard of living
https://usafacts.org/state-of-the-union/standard-living/
So yeah, I personally don't call it a failed state, but I don't blame others that do if they're in those categories.
The US is not anywhere close to meeting any of those definitions. USA has problems, sure, but it's nowhere close to being an actual failed state. You'd have to be aggressively biased against the US to argue that it's a failed state. By the same standards, pretty much every central american, south american, eastern asian country, and most european countries would count as failed states.
We're talking about someone's use of the words "failed state" because that's how they feel about the US and it definitely fits the definition based on the position some people are in.
People also argued in January 2020 that it would be ridiculous to worry about this coronavirus it's just as deadly as the flu. Literally told to me by a democratic doctor that works at an extremely prestigious medical institution. (Different take now).
I'm not saying the US is on the precipice of failure in 1 year and 7 months, but people don't realize the stilts things are on sometimes.
People also argued in January 2020 that it would be ridiculous to worry about this coronavirus it's just as deadly as the flu. Literally told to me by a democratic doctor that works at an extremely prestigious medical institution. (Different take now).
I'm not saying the US is on the precipice of failure in 1 year and 7 months, but people don't realize the stilts things are on sometimes.
I know what we're talking about and I will say (again) that using the words "failed state" for USA is objectively a bad, ignorant take based on numerous nationwide metrics and the standard of living of the rest of the world. How said person feels and their personal situation doesn't really change that. You can find people in every single nation who strongly believe their nation failed them. And even when that's true, that doesn't make a nation overall a "failed state".
Again, do words even have meaning anymore? Just because someone feels like America is a "failed state" doesn't make it so.
And finally, "failed state" is using the past tense. I can acknowledge that something is on stilts without claiming that it already fell down.
Again, do words even have meaning anymore? Just because someone feels like America is a "failed state" doesn't make it so.
And finally, "failed state" is using the past tense. I can acknowledge that something is on stilts without claiming that it already fell down.
> Basically the only country in the world that charges taxes on money you make and spend somewhere else
I believe Eritrea does this, too. They don't have as much political power as the US though, so they resort to torturing your remaining family members in the country to get you to comply.
I believe Eritrea does this, too. They don't have as much political power as the US though, so they resort to torturing your remaining family members in the country to get you to comply.
> They don't have as much political power
They're basically the North Korea of Africa. This is a massive understatement.
They're basically the North Korea of Africa. This is a massive understatement.
So they have as much political power as the US?
I know you're being facetious, but still, even as a joke this comparison is deeply wrong. There's nothing even remotely comparable between the two nations. You won't have your family interned in a concentration camp for moving to Italy for example.
[deleted]
INTERNATIONAL political power
And it's not as if Eritrean migrants or refugees are welcomed with open arms anywhere in the world, so there aren't that many in that position in the first place.
Hmm, I seem to recall hearing Australians also have complicated rules about being an "Australian resident for tax purposes" that is not the same as an Australian resident for other purposes, especially when you don't have Permanent Residence/Green Card and are on a time-limited visa (even if it's years long). So they don't technically fall into the "America and Eritrea" bad list, but still tax many Australians abroad. I forget the exact details though.
Not too bad really for us overseas Australians.
If you took out a HECS (0% interest, indexed to inflation) loan for university study you still need to file taxes when resident overseas and continue making payments if you earn over the threshold.
If you are resident in Australia more then 6mths of the year you must complete an Australian tax return, but for most people that involves logging in around september and checking that all the auto-fills match up with what they expected.
If you took out a HECS (0% interest, indexed to inflation) loan for university study you still need to file taxes when resident overseas and continue making payments if you earn over the threshold.
If you are resident in Australia more then 6mths of the year you must complete an Australian tax return, but for most people that involves logging in around september and checking that all the auto-fills match up with what they expected.
You have to be able to prove you're a resident somewhere overseas though, and that you've broken your ties to Australia.
It's more complicated for digital nomads that don't really have a permanent place overseas.
Other than that though, agreed. AU taxation filing is not complicated.
It's more complicated for digital nomads that don't really have a permanent place overseas.
Other than that though, agreed. AU taxation filing is not complicated.
They only just changed the laws a month ago to make it so opaque and vague about who qualifies as a tax-resident or not. It's basically a "if we want we will tax you" situation. The 183 day rule means little if you have even something as innocuous as a bank account back home now. It's a ridiculously stricter change that is entirely open to interpretation by the ATO.
https://www.mondaq.com/australia/income-tax/1070880/tax-resi...
https://www.mondaq.com/australia/income-tax/1070880/tax-resi...
Ugh, thats a headache of a read.
Sounds like they're just 'recommended' for now but won't take effect till next tax year at least.
Also sounds like its intended to catch people working 0% tax contracts in the middle east or digital nomading around east-asia till they need medical care. (still not a good reason to complicate things)
Sounds like they're just 'recommended' for now but won't take effect till next tax year at least.
Also sounds like its intended to catch people working 0% tax contracts in the middle east or digital nomading around east-asia till they need medical care. (still not a good reason to complicate things)
What you are describing is a pretty common requirement. Canada has a similar requirement, and while a passive bank account would in itself not be considered 'ties' to the country, an active one that sees use might.
That sounds nice. The tax preparation lobby in the US has so far prevented the IRS from pre-filling our tax returns.
Many countries do, and losing your tax residency in a country of which you’re a citizen and have been recently resident is a pain — check out the UK statutory residency tests for example.
That said, it _is_ possible to lose your tax residency in these countries, where American citizens are simply fucked.
That said, it _is_ possible to lose your tax residency in these countries, where American citizens are simply fucked.
This is untrue, if you're a citizen of Australia who is a non-resident you don't have to report or pay taxes on world wide income made outside of Australia.
There is an example[1] on their official site of an Australian living abroad in Japan and being a "resident for tax purposes" and thus being taxed, but not being a resident for other purposes.
[1]: https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/coming-to-australia-or-go...
[1]: https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/coming-to-australia-or-go...
Right they're still classified as a resident since they're on a temporary contract who intended on returning after their contract has expired.
If they had permanent residence in a different country they wouldn't need to.
If they had permanent residence in a different country they wouldn't need to.
As far as I know, in most countries, acquiring permanent residence requires living in the country for years first and then applying, so you will be on time-limited visas until then. That is the way it is in Japan, and it is 10 years to get PR, in the general case.
Anyway, I'm not an expert on Australian tax law by any means, I just wanted to note that it's not always so clear cut as "do other countries tax citizens living abroad".
Anyway, I'm not an expert on Australian tax law by any means, I just wanted to note that it's not always so clear cut as "do other countries tax citizens living abroad".
This confusion is common amongst people who haven't lived in abroad. Visa status, work permits, future intentions, work contracts and citizenships are all separate things and most countries weigh more than one factor to determine tax-residency.
In this example, the operative bit is this:
> She has a one-year contract, after which she plans to tour China, [...]
This time-boxes her intentions for living abroad. It's distinct from having an unlimited work contract with a temporary visa that requires renewals, which indicates intent to stay abroad (and potentially a basis for the visa renewals).
Other countries use things like a point system (UK), definitions of "centre of life" (Russia, where I live atm) and so on. Either way, Australia doesn't do the thing that the US & Eritrea do (tax applicability solely based on citizenship).
In this example, the operative bit is this:
> She has a one-year contract, after which she plans to tour China, [...]
This time-boxes her intentions for living abroad. It's distinct from having an unlimited work contract with a temporary visa that requires renewals, which indicates intent to stay abroad (and potentially a basis for the visa renewals).
Other countries use things like a point system (UK), definitions of "centre of life" (Russia, where I live atm) and so on. Either way, Australia doesn't do the thing that the US & Eritrea do (tax applicability solely based on citizenship).
> As far as I know, in most countries, acquiring permanent residence requires living in the country for years first and then applying, so you will be on time-limited visas until then.
I joined a US-based Company who organized my Green Card without me having ever been there.
As long as your intention is to migrate to a different country you're regarded as a non-resident in which case you wont have to pay taxes on worldwide income, unlike in the US.
I joined a US-based Company who organized my Green Card without me having ever been there.
As long as your intention is to migrate to a different country you're regarded as a non-resident in which case you wont have to pay taxes on worldwide income, unlike in the US.
The laws recently changed last month. If you spend more than 45 days in the country or tick two of the following dot points you are now considered a tax resident and need to pay income tax:
* the right to reside permanently in Australia
* Australian accommodation
* Australian family
* Australian economic interests.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a9c5000f-bde6...
* the right to reside permanently in Australia
* Australian accommodation
* Australian family
* Australian economic interests.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a9c5000f-bde6...
This sounds like proposed changes, I'm not seeing these rules reflected on ATO's guidance:
https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/coming-to-australia-or-go...
This suggests it wont come into effect until 2022:
> Since draft legislation is not yet available, the rules likely will not apply before 1 July 2022.
https://www.taxathand.com/article/17653/Australia/2021/New-t...
> If you spend more than 45 days in the country or tick two of the following dot points
The proposed secondary rules only applies after spending 45+ days in a FY, not OR. Which is important because this new criteria basically applies to most people born in Australia, so it basically reduces the 183 day test to 45.
https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/coming-to-australia-or-go...
This suggests it wont come into effect until 2022:
> Since draft legislation is not yet available, the rules likely will not apply before 1 July 2022.
https://www.taxathand.com/article/17653/Australia/2021/New-t...
> If you spend more than 45 days in the country or tick two of the following dot points
The proposed secondary rules only applies after spending 45+ days in a FY, not OR. Which is important because this new criteria basically applies to most people born in Australia, so it basically reduces the 183 day test to 45.
So, just by being australian and having family there you check box #1 and #3 automatically?
It's also problematic in other way, my friends moved to US for a job for few years and had kids there. US gives you citizenship by place of birth so the kids have US citizenship. Now that they are back they are in a bit of a pickle not knowing what to do, the kids might be screwed and own money to the US for nothing when they grow up but renouncing it now for them also doesn't make sense (if even possible) because they might want to have it, who knows.
Look up "Accidental Americans". It's been a problem for a lot of people including, especially Canadians and Mexicans who were born on the wrong side of the border.
[deleted]
When I lived and worked in East Africa, I know that most, if not all of my income, was not taxed back in the US because of the Foreign Income Exclusion Act. Basically, for foreign earned income anywhere below ~$80,000 at the time, I didn't have to pay tax, which the limit is now around $108,000 or so.
However, as you point out, that doesn't seem to apply to dividends and capital gains and other types of income [1].
I wonder why it doesn't apply to those other incomes and if it did, whether that would alleviate many of the problems for most Americans overseas. In other words, why not just have a threshold below which all foreign income is not taxed and then tax above it?
I'm curious to learn more about the history of that act and why it developed as it did.
[1]: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/fore...
However, as you point out, that doesn't seem to apply to dividends and capital gains and other types of income [1].
I wonder why it doesn't apply to those other incomes and if it did, whether that would alleviate many of the problems for most Americans overseas. In other words, why not just have a threshold below which all foreign income is not taxed and then tax above it?
I'm curious to learn more about the history of that act and why it developed as it did.
[1]: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/fore...
The problem isn't paying tax, it is
1) filing, which is enormously complicated, and 2) severe restrictions on what financial services you can access.
1) filing, which is enormously complicated, and 2) severe restrictions on what financial services you can access.
I appreciate this comment. I as well wish just "regular" taxes were more simple to file and also I can imagine how frustrating it might be to not be able to access certain services. Thank for the clarification.
It seems like it is a more progressive scheme to protect wages over investment income.
The worst part for me is not the taxes themselves, but it's that I feel like I have no representation while overseas. When I was living in Australia, my representatives were for the state of Oregon. Not once did one of my assigned representatives nor senators propose legislation meant to help expats overseas, they understandably represented their voter base in Oregon.
It essentially creates a system of taxation without representation; ironically something the country has a deep history fighting against. The number of US expats is enormous, and if they were a state of their own they'd be the 11th most populated state (just ahead of New Jersey). If we're going to tax expats overseas, at the very least they should be provided with senators that are dedicated to fighting for their cause.
It essentially creates a system of taxation without representation; ironically something the country has a deep history fighting against. The number of US expats is enormous, and if they were a state of their own they'd be the 11th most populated state (just ahead of New Jersey). If we're going to tax expats overseas, at the very least they should be provided with senators that are dedicated to fighting for their cause.
American here living abroad in Croatia, which does not have a tax or social security agreement with the US.
The only reason why I do not renounce my American citizenship is because the very rare disease that I have was discovered on NIH grant funds in the 2000s and ultimately saved my life.
I am not sentimental about being American, except for that.
The only reason why I do not renounce my American citizenship is because the very rare disease that I have was discovered on NIH grant funds in the 2000s and ultimately saved my life.
I am not sentimental about being American, except for that.
What disease if you don't mind me asking?
Autoimmune autonomic ganglionopathy: https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/11917/autoimmune-...
It's immune-mediated autonomic neuropathy and causes autonomic nervous system failure. I am in pharmaceutical remission now.
It's immune-mediated autonomic neuropathy and causes autonomic nervous system failure. I am in pharmaceutical remission now.
In Canada and not being able to open a tax free savings account is a major blow
Oh god don't get me started. I cannot have a shared account with my wife because she is american. She can only be authorized. She cannot get her own credit card but has to be an authorized card holder on my account.
If I tried to actually but her as a shared account user the bank told me they will terminate the relationship.
If I tried to actually but her as a shared account user the bank told me they will terminate the relationship.
I am renouncing for these exact reasons. I am lucky enough not to be rich enough for the exit tax, though.
Couldn't agree more, sounds like you're in Australia too - I've been here 9 years and am yet to file tax... Interested how bad they will fuck me when I do...
Fake your death while you still can
A practical guide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fall_and_Rise_of_Reginald_...
You wrote: Thanks to IRS regulations, 90% of investment firms will just reject me outright rather than deal with the paperwork.
Sorry for your troubles. Do you know about https://www.interactivebrokers.com? They are an ultra-low cost international brokerage. It seems they specialise in handling complex regulations! They can open brokerage accounts for local residents in an incredible number of countries -- all legally. Even India, which very difficult! Normally, they have a tiny office in each location to handle local financial regulatory requires (KYC, AML). FYI: The head office is in the United States, which is great for strong securities regulations. I strongly recommend it. And they aren't some start-up. They have been around for a long time. Their product range is similar to a large investment bank. You can trade everything under the sun that is listed on an exchange.
Save the best for last: They recently scrapped their minimum monthly fees for low balance accounts.
(Re-reading this post, sorry if I sound like a 'shill'. Everything I wrote above can be independently verified with some Google searching!)
Sorry for your troubles. Do you know about https://www.interactivebrokers.com? They are an ultra-low cost international brokerage. It seems they specialise in handling complex regulations! They can open brokerage accounts for local residents in an incredible number of countries -- all legally. Even India, which very difficult! Normally, they have a tiny office in each location to handle local financial regulatory requires (KYC, AML). FYI: The head office is in the United States, which is great for strong securities regulations. I strongly recommend it. And they aren't some start-up. They have been around for a long time. Their product range is similar to a large investment bank. You can trade everything under the sun that is listed on an exchange.
Save the best for last: They recently scrapped their minimum monthly fees for low balance accounts.
(Re-reading this post, sorry if I sound like a 'shill'. Everything I wrote above can be independently verified with some Google searching!)
Always amused me how every financial service the world over asks if you're a US citizen and denies you if you answer YES. Nobody wants to deal with the IRS.
What's unfair isn't this practise per-say, but the fact that it's not equal.
I think keeping hold of foreign citizenship represents an unfair advantage to some degree, as a kind of "fallback" - e.g. if things go to shit you always have the option of returning home.
but other nationalities generally don't need to pay to remain citizens while they are abroad, so Americans are treated unusually.
I think keeping hold of foreign citizenship represents an unfair advantage to some degree, as a kind of "fallback" - e.g. if things go to shit you always have the option of returning home.
but other nationalities generally don't need to pay to remain citizens while they are abroad, so Americans are treated unusually.
How is it unfair to have fallback option? Is it unfair to California when someone decides to move Texas for lower taxes?
> How is it unfair to have fallback option?
because natives with just one passport don't have that option.
> Is it unfair to California..
California and Texas are in the same country
because natives with just one passport don't have that option.
> Is it unfair to California..
California and Texas are in the same country
>because natives with just one passport don't have that option.
If by natives, you mean Native Americans, they have their own sovereignties. Many have do have tribal passports in addition to US passports.
If by natives you mean, John Q Public, then that's just crab-bucket thinking. The majority of Americans have zero passports, leave alone one. By your standard, it should be wrong for people to have one at all since most Americans don't have the legal certification to travel beyond North America and seek asylum as a fall back should the US crap itself.
While not everyone has a similar option for a fallback, everyone has a choice. Nobody is prevented by the US government from attempting to a obtain a second passport. It's a matter of a person's choosing to meet the requirements to obtain one or not.
>California and Texas are in the same country.
Yes, however your argument was one escaping to another jurisdiction with the previous jurisdiction as a fallback. That isn't limited to hopping between states nor should it be. If a state or country can't compete in taxes, services, or culture, I have the right to vote with my feet and to obtain a new residence or nationality however I see fit. Mutatis mutantis, the same goes for everyone else.
If by natives, you mean Native Americans, they have their own sovereignties. Many have do have tribal passports in addition to US passports.
If by natives you mean, John Q Public, then that's just crab-bucket thinking. The majority of Americans have zero passports, leave alone one. By your standard, it should be wrong for people to have one at all since most Americans don't have the legal certification to travel beyond North America and seek asylum as a fall back should the US crap itself.
While not everyone has a similar option for a fallback, everyone has a choice. Nobody is prevented by the US government from attempting to a obtain a second passport. It's a matter of a person's choosing to meet the requirements to obtain one or not.
>California and Texas are in the same country.
Yes, however your argument was one escaping to another jurisdiction with the previous jurisdiction as a fallback. That isn't limited to hopping between states nor should it be. If a state or country can't compete in taxes, services, or culture, I have the right to vote with my feet and to obtain a new residence or nationality however I see fit. Mutatis mutantis, the same goes for everyone else.
I don't mean native Americans - I mean the residents of any country who also hold some other passport/citizenship.
> By your standard, it should be wrong for people to have one at all
By "having a passport" I mean eligibility for a passport aka citizenship, not literally whether you've applied for one. Equal opportunity should exist - whether it is taken advantage or not is another matter.
> It's a matter of a person's choosing to meet the requirements to obtain one or not
How does one choose hereditary requirements? Or capital requirements (aka golden pass)?
> your argument was one escaping to another jurisdiction
Maybe there are similar issues between state jurisdictions, but I talked specifically of national/country jurisdictions which aren't really similar; especially wrt tax.
In any case, I think the point is moot since all US citizens are (equally) fairly free to cross state lines. The point isn't that it's unfair to move to another jurisdiction with another as fall-back, but that not all are equally able to do this - which is true of states.
> By your standard, it should be wrong for people to have one at all
By "having a passport" I mean eligibility for a passport aka citizenship, not literally whether you've applied for one. Equal opportunity should exist - whether it is taken advantage or not is another matter.
> It's a matter of a person's choosing to meet the requirements to obtain one or not
How does one choose hereditary requirements? Or capital requirements (aka golden pass)?
> your argument was one escaping to another jurisdiction
Maybe there are similar issues between state jurisdictions, but I talked specifically of national/country jurisdictions which aren't really similar; especially wrt tax.
In any case, I think the point is moot since all US citizens are (equally) fairly free to cross state lines. The point isn't that it's unfair to move to another jurisdiction with another as fall-back, but that not all are equally able to do this - which is true of states.
I don't want to get too political, but things were different before the 2017 tax law change. The main point, overseas Americans still have to pay US taxes, was true before then. But, pre-2017, they could deduct what they paid to the country they were residing in. This meant, in reality, the vast majority of expats did not have to pay US taxes.
It's quite possible that the Democrats will, if they modify the tax system, undo that change. That might be why investment firms hesitate to have you as a client. Although, unless you are using tax-advantaged accounts, it shouldn't be that much extra paperwork for them.
As for rich people gaming the system - I can imagine Bezos et al. would not mind living in the Caymans for a year while he sold all his stock to pay no taxes. If you can determine when you pay taxes, that's a huge benefit.
It's quite possible that the Democrats will, if they modify the tax system, undo that change. That might be why investment firms hesitate to have you as a client. Although, unless you are using tax-advantaged accounts, it shouldn't be that much extra paperwork for them.
As for rich people gaming the system - I can imagine Bezos et al. would not mind living in the Caymans for a year while he sold all his stock to pay no taxes. If you can determine when you pay taxes, that's a huge benefit.
US states do the same thing.
States with income tax will tax you whether you work in the state, or you are resident in the state.
States with income tax will tax you whether you work in the state, or you are resident in the state.
Or if you're in NY for too many days, even not for work, they'll tax you too :)
Or if you're remote but company HQ in NY.
Eric Schmidt renounced his US citizenship even though he owns 2 California homes and one in Massachusetts.
You don't have to be a US citizen to purchase property in the country. This is the same for many of the European, Central/South American and South East Asian countries. Is it as straightforward as being a citizen no, but it can usually be done without much extra effort.
Also, given the exit tax, he'll have to pay taxes on them as if he had sold the properties, despite the properties not having been sold.
My reading of the exit tax is it is merely paying all the taxes on any gains that you have made but have yet to pay. For example if you have bought stock but not sold it you would be taxed on the gains you made. This applies to real-estate and other holdings as well.
To me this makes sense it is like you paying your final taxes before leaving as such I don't see how it is anything additional but I could very well be mistaken.
To me this makes sense it is like you paying your final taxes before leaving as such I don't see how it is anything additional but I could very well be mistaken.
He did not renounce his citizenship, where are you getting this information?
The ex-pat life comes with certain costs, yes. Did that from 1998 to 2006.
My wife was brought over to Belgium by what was then a subsidiary of JP Morgan, and they paid for all the additional expenses, including the tax services of some very talented people at Earnest & Young. They also paid for all the paperwork to get her a Belgian work permit. We weren’t actually married at the time, just engaged. But JPM agreed to treat us like a married couple. The only thing they didn’t pay for was the work permit for me.
It took a lot of effort for me to find work over there, a lot more than I expected, given my career and experience. And those companies did have to deal with the hassle of getting a work permit for me, as well as complications with US taxes. I didn’t end up working at Belgacom Skynet for long, but that cratered more because the parent company wanted to re-absorb the ISP arm back in-house, and so all the technical people with a clue bailed like rats from that sinking ship, and I was just one of the last to leave.
But hoo boy, every year, that poor team of accountants at E&Y had their work cut out for them, when it came time to file our taxes.
In the end, the reason we left was that my wife’s employer (now spun off from JPM) wanted to pay her as a Belgian native, and we had been in the country long enough to get Belgian passports. But that would have been a massive pay cut for her, and did not make financial sense to us. They were very surprised when she told them that she was not going to be accepting that offer, and so they had to negotiate to pay her as an ex-pay for one more year while she worked to help find a replacement and train her office to handle that transition. Part of that negotiation involved getting them to agree to move us to whatever country we wanted — including moving back to the US.
So, yeah — I can understand why some people might choose to go the other direction, and renounce their US citizenship.
OTOH, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the ultra-wealthy people who have all decided to set up shop in New Zealand. Yes, visiting NZ is on my bucket list. But I’m not interested in giving up my US citizenship and moving there permanently.
My wife was brought over to Belgium by what was then a subsidiary of JP Morgan, and they paid for all the additional expenses, including the tax services of some very talented people at Earnest & Young. They also paid for all the paperwork to get her a Belgian work permit. We weren’t actually married at the time, just engaged. But JPM agreed to treat us like a married couple. The only thing they didn’t pay for was the work permit for me.
It took a lot of effort for me to find work over there, a lot more than I expected, given my career and experience. And those companies did have to deal with the hassle of getting a work permit for me, as well as complications with US taxes. I didn’t end up working at Belgacom Skynet for long, but that cratered more because the parent company wanted to re-absorb the ISP arm back in-house, and so all the technical people with a clue bailed like rats from that sinking ship, and I was just one of the last to leave.
But hoo boy, every year, that poor team of accountants at E&Y had their work cut out for them, when it came time to file our taxes.
In the end, the reason we left was that my wife’s employer (now spun off from JPM) wanted to pay her as a Belgian native, and we had been in the country long enough to get Belgian passports. But that would have been a massive pay cut for her, and did not make financial sense to us. They were very surprised when she told them that she was not going to be accepting that offer, and so they had to negotiate to pay her as an ex-pay for one more year while she worked to help find a replacement and train her office to handle that transition. Part of that negotiation involved getting them to agree to move us to whatever country we wanted — including moving back to the US.
So, yeah — I can understand why some people might choose to go the other direction, and renounce their US citizenship.
OTOH, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the ultra-wealthy people who have all decided to set up shop in New Zealand. Yes, visiting NZ is on my bucket list. But I’m not interested in giving up my US citizenship and moving there permanently.
"Basically the only country in the world that charges taxes on money you make and spend somewhere else, just because of where you were born."
It is not about where you are born, it is about where you have citizenship (and possibly also residency).
As long as you maintain your US citizenship you are morally obligated to contribute to the well being of the country, the biggest and easiest to understand of course is national defense.
Likewise, if you own a property in another state that you only use a portion of the year you are not off the hook for paying taxes that contribute to, for example, road maintenance and local schools.
Where I do have sympathy is that they make it extremely difficult for expats to file as well as maintain investment accounts.
It is not about where you are born, it is about where you have citizenship (and possibly also residency).
As long as you maintain your US citizenship you are morally obligated to contribute to the well being of the country, the biggest and easiest to understand of course is national defense.
Likewise, if you own a property in another state that you only use a portion of the year you are not off the hook for paying taxes that contribute to, for example, road maintenance and local schools.
Where I do have sympathy is that they make it extremely difficult for expats to file as well as maintain investment accounts.
>and possibly also residency
Not that is the issue. Residency is the norm, the US is both residency and citizenship.
Not that is the issue. Residency is the norm, the US is both residency and citizenship.
So which investment firms will work with you? Asking for a friend...
Also are you referring to FATCA when you talk about investment firms? My understanding is that FATCA doesn't really become an issue until you have more than a certain amount of assets in the country you are living in.
FBAR does have to always be reported for all accounts but is a separate issue.
EDIT: I think I misread. I was wondering if you were having problems with investment firms in the USA not wanting to work with you. Are you saying that you are trying to invest using companies located in your current country of residence?
Also are you referring to FATCA when you talk about investment firms? My understanding is that FATCA doesn't really become an issue until you have more than a certain amount of assets in the country you are living in.
FBAR does have to always be reported for all accounts but is a separate issue.
EDIT: I think I misread. I was wondering if you were having problems with investment firms in the USA not wanting to work with you. Are you saying that you are trying to invest using companies located in your current country of residence?
> Basically the only country in the world that charges taxes on money you make and spend somewhere else,
Only country in the world that charges taxes on money that they have no business over.
Only country in the world that charges taxes on money that they have no business over.
AFAIK if you live in a country like Canada with higher taxes you still have to file to maintain citizenship but you end up paying zero since you can deduct what you paid in your home country.
This would apply to people relocating to countries with a lower tax base. In that case you have to renounce.
This would apply to people relocating to countries with a lower tax base. In that case you have to renounce.
There isn’t always symmetry in the tax status of various elements. The US doesn’t recognize Canadian Tax Free Savings Accounts (similar to Roth IRAs) so you can’t benefit from them without being taxed in the US.
You can still get caught out. Taxes in the UK are generally higher than in the US, but Boris Johnson still got hit with a US tax bill when he inherited a flat in London.
And any ISAs (or similar tax free savings things) you hold are fully taxable by the US. Joy.
[deleted]
Deductions vary greatly between jurisdictions. Capital gains taxes vary greatly, tax-sheltered savings accounts may not be recognized, certain rollovers programs probably only exist in one of the jurisdictions, etc. None of these people renouncing their citizenship just make straight employment income.
》Basically the only country in the world that charges taxes on money you make and spend somewhere else, just because of where you were born.
Some other countries do that as well. Norway for limited time period. Some others have exit fees etc.
Some other countries do that as well. Norway for limited time period. Some others have exit fees etc.
Could it be because you're eligible for social security even if you don't reside in the US? I'm not sure about medicare or unemployment benefits.
My understanding is that US-ian expats can collect Social Security while outside the country (not sure if it can be deposited, as we're not doing that). Medicare has no meaning outside the US but we're eligible. Non- (and I assuming renounced) citizens can't get Social Security unless they live in the US, I think. And don't forget there's also a foreign tax credit as well as the Earned Income exclusion.
Non-citizens are not eligible for any public benefit. As regards medicare you're probably eligible the moment you enter the country. So technically you could head back if you 're having issues - ymmv.
To be fair, the United States is also one of the only countries with birth right citizenship.
The US has a lot of tax treaties with many countries to prevent double taxation. Does your country not have one?
That is a bummer but on the plus side the USA will send the Navy Seals to get you if someone kidnaps you. That's worth something. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_of_Jessica_Buchanan_and...
I used to live internationally and the taxes weren’t that much more complex. It really shouldn’t cost thousands, it’s just two extra forms if I recall correctly.
If you Are living in high tax regimes like Switzerland you don’t have double tax on the first $xx,xxx in income, it used to be close to 90k.
If you Are living in high tax regimes like Switzerland you don’t have double tax on the first $xx,xxx in income, it used to be close to 90k.
It must be nice to have problems like that.
You don’t need to be rich to move out of the US.
Not according to the complaints here.
Most of the complaints are that being an expat US citizen is:
1. a right pain in the ass, because you have to fill US taxes even when you don't reside in the US, work with the US, and haven't set foot there in years.
2. a right pain in the ass because you have to declare local welfare as income to the US government
3. a right pain in the ass because taxes being so much simpler in most other countries means accountants is a much rarer career very much specialised for extremely high income, far beyond your means, and most of them don't know and can't help with US taxes anyway
4. a right pain in the ass because things like FATCA means most financial institution have decided it's just not worth interacting with US citizens and will refuse to deal with them — this can make it very difficult to function at any sort of level especially as countries progressively increase their cashlessness
5. a right pain in the ass because even if you decide you've had enough and decide to renounce it's expensive and complicated
I'm sure I'm missing a bunch as I'm not a US citizen let alone a US expat.
1. a right pain in the ass, because you have to fill US taxes even when you don't reside in the US, work with the US, and haven't set foot there in years.
2. a right pain in the ass because you have to declare local welfare as income to the US government
3. a right pain in the ass because taxes being so much simpler in most other countries means accountants is a much rarer career very much specialised for extremely high income, far beyond your means, and most of them don't know and can't help with US taxes anyway
4. a right pain in the ass because things like FATCA means most financial institution have decided it's just not worth interacting with US citizens and will refuse to deal with them — this can make it very difficult to function at any sort of level especially as countries progressively increase their cashlessness
5. a right pain in the ass because even if you decide you've had enough and decide to renounce it's expensive and complicated
I'm sure I'm missing a bunch as I'm not a US citizen let alone a US expat.
What about the benefits? You get social security wherever you live. Most countries don't pay social security to their citizens living abroad.
[deleted]
Edit: My question wasn’t clear, but it’s not important.
> [..] this taxation is in place effectively due to rich people in the first place hiding money in accounts overseas.[..]
I think that was the original intent but:
1. It affects everyone including many people not paying taxes in a amount where it matters.
2. I'm not sure if it works, the really rich people (i.e. the ones you would want to be "captured" by this law the most) have way to many ways to avoid paying taxes and reduce the amount they "in person" have to pay.
It might be reasonable to have a cut blow which you you don't have to bother with this.
I also have frequently considered if it would make sense for the country I live in to have such a law.
But in the end I realized that this is probably not what I would want.
In the end the problem is much more countries which intentionally create tax gaps to benefit from it but directly hurting other countries with that and even potentially undermining their governments independence.
Through without question even if that is solved there is still the fact that even wrt. countries which do not do so their can be huge differences in taxation, but "somehow" "disabling" tax havens would be a much bigger step in the right direction then this regulation IMHO.
I think that was the original intent but:
1. It affects everyone including many people not paying taxes in a amount where it matters.
2. I'm not sure if it works, the really rich people (i.e. the ones you would want to be "captured" by this law the most) have way to many ways to avoid paying taxes and reduce the amount they "in person" have to pay.
It might be reasonable to have a cut blow which you you don't have to bother with this.
I also have frequently considered if it would make sense for the country I live in to have such a law.
But in the end I realized that this is probably not what I would want.
In the end the problem is much more countries which intentionally create tax gaps to benefit from it but directly hurting other countries with that and even potentially undermining their governments independence.
Through without question even if that is solved there is still the fact that even wrt. countries which do not do so their can be huge differences in taxation, but "somehow" "disabling" tax havens would be a much bigger step in the right direction then this regulation IMHO.
The US is the top tax haven in the world.
You read that right.
The US is the top place to hide your money if you are a foreigner
Yet foreign countries are not rushing to change their laws to tax their citizens living abroad. There is no urgency to tax their expats who havent worked or lived back on foreign home for years, even decades.
So if nost countries have reason to complain about us helping hide stuff, they dont seem interested in enforcing anything
You read that right.
The US is the top place to hide your money if you are a foreigner
Yet foreign countries are not rushing to change their laws to tax their citizens living abroad. There is no urgency to tax their expats who havent worked or lived back on foreign home for years, even decades.
So if nost countries have reason to complain about us helping hide stuff, they dont seem interested in enforcing anything
> they dont seem interested in enforcing anything
Or are not able to. Weather it's because of risking more people with money fleeing before changes take into effect, to much influence of wealthy people in politics or being forced by external forced, e.g. in context of not-so-public trade agreements.
Or are not able to. Weather it's because of risking more people with money fleeing before changes take into effect, to much influence of wealthy people in politics or being forced by external forced, e.g. in context of not-so-public trade agreements.
On the other hand, is it right to be able to leave the country indefinitely, not contribute to the country at all, but still expect to have all the benefits of citizenship forever?
What benefits does one have when living in a foreign country as a US citizen? There is no legal representation. There is no access to US government services. What exactly would an overseas US citizen be paying for?
All of the benefits that taxes provide. I don't even know them all offhand, let alone have enough space to enumerate them fully.
Some of the major benefits that come to mind: Protect by a world superpower military and diplomacy, welfare and social security, a stable place to return to in the case of trouble, a country that ensures development of vaccines and provides them for it's population in the case of pandemics.
I would really like us to add to that list: medicare (or similar) for all as well as some other social benefits that make sense to enable more risk free pursuit of happiness and simplify employment.
Some of the major benefits that come to mind: Protect by a world superpower military and diplomacy, welfare and social security, a stable place to return to in the case of trouble, a country that ensures development of vaccines and provides them for it's population in the case of pandemics.
I would really like us to add to that list: medicare (or similar) for all as well as some other social benefits that make sense to enable more risk free pursuit of happiness and simplify employment.
>>Protect by a world superpower military and diplomacy,
That's the argument the British crown once made for taxation without representation. It wasn't very well-received.
A country is obligated to protect its own borders and demand commensurate payment. I don't see a reason to pay for American military expansionism if I'm kept safe enough by my country of residence. Anything beyond that is wasted tax dollars or adventurism with the US government's own motives in mind. I shouldn't have to subsidize either one.
>>welfare and social security,
EBT, food stamps, COBRA, etc. aren't recognized outside of the United States. Social security is not a benefit. It's a Ponzi-scheme with a gun to your head taking money that was already earned and delaying it until you have strong chance of dying from a heart attack.
>>a stable place to return to in the case of trouble,
That's an argument that can be made for most overseas citizen of many countries. Yet these other countries have not fallen to shambles on the basis of lacking global taxation. There's no reason for me to pay for a "stability" I'm not in a longitude and latitude to benefit from.
On the contrary, there is a case to be made that United States is quite unstable itself as it has failed to contain a disease within its own borders and has also chosen to violate property rights under its unconstitutional eviction moratorium without providing just compensation. Even pre-COVID, some areas like Chicago and Los Angeles have had crime ratings high enough to compete with entire countries.
>>a country that ensures development of vaccines and provides them for it's population in the case of pandemics.
So can India, China, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Australia, etc. Why should I pay the United States if I received my vaccine from these countries' labs and and medical resources instead?
>>medicare (or similar) for all as well as some other social benefits that make sense to enable more risk free pursuit of happiness and simplify employment.
An American citizen can't use medicare in a foreign country. Just like how a British citizen can't use NHS services in the United States. The pursuit of happiness is a negative right, not a subsidized one.
That's the argument the British crown once made for taxation without representation. It wasn't very well-received.
A country is obligated to protect its own borders and demand commensurate payment. I don't see a reason to pay for American military expansionism if I'm kept safe enough by my country of residence. Anything beyond that is wasted tax dollars or adventurism with the US government's own motives in mind. I shouldn't have to subsidize either one.
>>welfare and social security,
EBT, food stamps, COBRA, etc. aren't recognized outside of the United States. Social security is not a benefit. It's a Ponzi-scheme with a gun to your head taking money that was already earned and delaying it until you have strong chance of dying from a heart attack.
>>a stable place to return to in the case of trouble,
That's an argument that can be made for most overseas citizen of many countries. Yet these other countries have not fallen to shambles on the basis of lacking global taxation. There's no reason for me to pay for a "stability" I'm not in a longitude and latitude to benefit from.
On the contrary, there is a case to be made that United States is quite unstable itself as it has failed to contain a disease within its own borders and has also chosen to violate property rights under its unconstitutional eviction moratorium without providing just compensation. Even pre-COVID, some areas like Chicago and Los Angeles have had crime ratings high enough to compete with entire countries.
>>a country that ensures development of vaccines and provides them for it's population in the case of pandemics.
So can India, China, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Australia, etc. Why should I pay the United States if I received my vaccine from these countries' labs and and medical resources instead?
>>medicare (or similar) for all as well as some other social benefits that make sense to enable more risk free pursuit of happiness and simplify employment.
An American citizen can't use medicare in a foreign country. Just like how a British citizen can't use NHS services in the United States. The pursuit of happiness is a negative right, not a subsidized one.
>>>>Protect by a world superpower military and diplomacy,
>>That's the argument the British crown once made for taxation without representation. ...
IIRC Those living outside of the US still have the right to cast votes for President, and are not compelled to pay non-federal taxes. An argument might be made for non-state citizens to at least have a single representative and senator they can vote for.
>>>> (social programs)
>> ... Ponzi-scheme ...
I agree about the problems with the funding and fulfillment structure. However the reality still exists even if the current implementation is unfair for those of us not yet seeing the benefits. If you're also a US citizen, please vote to get this fixed.
-- The next set of points contradict my historically long viewed claim of stability. Generally both viewpoints are correct; though I would like to compare the current issues with the virus and unrest in the US to the latest 6 WEEKS lockdown in portions of Australia. Stability is __relative__.
-- The last point was my hopeful view for benefits I'd prefer all US taxpayers to receive in the future. If your opinion differs from mine, you could share what other befits you'd like to see instead.
>>That's the argument the British crown once made for taxation without representation. ...
IIRC Those living outside of the US still have the right to cast votes for President, and are not compelled to pay non-federal taxes. An argument might be made for non-state citizens to at least have a single representative and senator they can vote for.
>>>> (social programs)
>> ... Ponzi-scheme ...
I agree about the problems with the funding and fulfillment structure. However the reality still exists even if the current implementation is unfair for those of us not yet seeing the benefits. If you're also a US citizen, please vote to get this fixed.
-- The next set of points contradict my historically long viewed claim of stability. Generally both viewpoints are correct; though I would like to compare the current issues with the virus and unrest in the US to the latest 6 WEEKS lockdown in portions of Australia. Stability is __relative__.
-- The last point was my hopeful view for benefits I'd prefer all US taxpayers to receive in the future. If your opinion differs from mine, you could share what other befits you'd like to see instead.
> If you're also a US citizen, please vote to get this fixed.
Where/how can US citizens vote to modify the social security system?
Where/how can US citizens vote to modify the social security system?
I thought US expats could vote where they last lived in the US in Federal elections... President, Senate and House.
Legally: yes, federal law says that you have to be allowed to vote for the federal offices from wherever you last lived in the US (or your American parent, if you were born abroad but never lived in the US)
Reality: some states make it easy and will even let you vote in state and local elections, others make it inconvenient if you’re not with the military (have to request ballots every year, have to diligently watch for registration purges), and some make it practically impossible for non-military.
If you’re an American abroad having trouble registering and/or getting your ballots, your local Democrats Abroad chapter has someone who will help you out. Even if you’re a Republican ;)
I want as many US citizens abroad as possible to vote on a regular basis, even if they’re voting differently from me: our representatives will pay more attention to us if they see that we vote in larger numbers.
Reality: some states make it easy and will even let you vote in state and local elections, others make it inconvenient if you’re not with the military (have to request ballots every year, have to diligently watch for registration purges), and some make it practically impossible for non-military.
If you’re an American abroad having trouble registering and/or getting your ballots, your local Democrats Abroad chapter has someone who will help you out. Even if you’re a Republican ;)
I want as many US citizens abroad as possible to vote on a regular basis, even if they’re voting differently from me: our representatives will pay more attention to us if they see that we vote in larger numbers.
Is there a way to, even approximately, target the "social security system" issue with your vote? Or do you have to chose between 2 or 3 bundles of pre-chosen policies, the composition of which you had no say in?
If there are no benefits to being a US citizen while living abroad, there should be no issue with renouncing their citizenship.
Why do they want to maintain their citizenship if it doesn’t give them anything?
Why do they want to maintain their citizenship if it doesn’t give them anything?
To keep the option open of coming back, and then using government services/paying taxes.
I would suggest that the major benefit would be that if things go to shit wherever you are, you can flee back to the US. There are probably other countries you could choose for that instead, though.
Also, if you give up your citizenship, does that have any implications for traveling back to the US? You might very well have friends and family you would like to visit occasionally.
Also, if you give up your citizenship, does that have any implications for traveling back to the US? You might very well have friends and family you would like to visit occasionally.
We are still culturally American, and we still have family in the US. And if we visit, we pay taxes on everything while we’re there. There are taxes on the flight in, on the fuel we use, on the stuff we buy. And maybe we’d like to move back.
So why conflate being American with federal taxes and bureaucracy?
Maybe America should think about the benefits we expats provide to it while living and representing our culture and values abroad. We usually make a good impression on our country’s behalf, but everyone abroad is shocked to hear about the potential draconian penalties and compliance headaches our government forces on us.
So why conflate being American with federal taxes and bureaucracy?
Maybe America should think about the benefits we expats provide to it while living and representing our culture and values abroad. We usually make a good impression on our country’s behalf, but everyone abroad is shocked to hear about the potential draconian penalties and compliance headaches our government forces on us.
Most people don't actually owe anything so the burden is mostly administrative, and what you're going through it for is not "where you were born" but continued citizenship and attendant benefits. As the article describes, you're free to give that up if you don't think it is worth it.
The article states
> "There are probably 20,000 or 30,000 people who want to [renounce citizenship], but they can’t get the appointment," Lesperance said. "There’s not a peak demand — the system’s capacity has peaked."
Also, it seems you need to pay a non trivial sum to do it, which is a real problem for US citizens abroad who are not rich.
"Free to give that up" does not apply, unfortunately.
> "There are probably 20,000 or 30,000 people who want to [renounce citizenship], but they can’t get the appointment," Lesperance said. "There’s not a peak demand — the system’s capacity has peaked."
Also, it seems you need to pay a non trivial sum to do it, which is a real problem for US citizens abroad who are not rich.
"Free to give that up" does not apply, unfortunately.
Not sure where you got the thing about the cost, which doesn't seem to be in the article, but it also flatly states that "The people who flee tend to be ultra-wealthy, and many of them are seeking to reduce their tax burden."
The article talks about the ultra wealthy, but they have the power, money and means to easily deal with the citizenship taxation bs. I don't care about them.
The problem is that those rules are punishing regular people.
I know one person who wasn't allowed to open bank accounts because of her citizenship. Another who yearly gets stressad out because filing US taxes is such a grueling process compared to the local process where you're done within ten minutes. Another wants to renounce citizenship because he doesn't want to deal with the bureaucracy, but he cannot afford it.
They all live in Sweden, which I doubt anyone sane would consider a tax haven.
If Eritrea is the only other country in the world that implements similar draconian tax laws, maybe there's something wrong with those laws?
The problem is that those rules are punishing regular people.
I know one person who wasn't allowed to open bank accounts because of her citizenship. Another who yearly gets stressad out because filing US taxes is such a grueling process compared to the local process where you're done within ten minutes. Another wants to renounce citizenship because he doesn't want to deal with the bureaucracy, but he cannot afford it.
They all live in Sweden, which I doubt anyone sane would consider a tax haven.
If Eritrea is the only other country in the world that implements similar draconian tax laws, maybe there's something wrong with those laws?
> 90% of investment firms
These must be very small meat and potatoes investment firms then. They might not have a compliance department and might not be able to justify the salary of having someone tackle FATCA requirements. I, as an American abroad primarily used the big banks (HSBC, BNP, Barkleys) because its built in to the service.
These must be very small meat and potatoes investment firms then. They might not have a compliance department and might not be able to justify the salary of having someone tackle FATCA requirements. I, as an American abroad primarily used the big banks (HSBC, BNP, Barkleys) because its built in to the service.
In Israel (9m pop), non of the banks available to the general public (Poalim, Leumi, Discount, Iggud/Mizrahi) will let you do anything other than a checking account and a saving account. Perhaps a loan but definitely no holdings; and similarly no broker will either. They are not small. It just isn’t worth it to them financially so they don’t. There are est. 300k US tax payers in Israel, but while the profit is per-person, the compliance costs are huge and mostly constant.
HSBC in Israel, last I Heard, had a $2M account minimum.
HSBC in Israel, last I Heard, had a $2M account minimum.
Yes, but at least you can still buy US ETF's unlike in the EU. And Interactive brokers has a bank account in Israel you can wire money into, so one can get by.
HSBC Hong Kong does not accept US citizens or green card holders to open an investment account.
I don't see how wealth has much to do with it. It's a question of citizenship and taxes.
The other extreme is what we currently have in Croatia:
A vast group of people who don't live here have citizenship and they express their patriotism by voting for the conservative right without exception for the past 30 years.
If you want to be treated as a citizen — live here and pay your taxes. If you don't, the door's that way.
The other extreme is what we currently have in Croatia:
A vast group of people who don't live here have citizenship and they express their patriotism by voting for the conservative right without exception for the past 30 years.
If you want to be treated as a citizen — live here and pay your taxes. If you don't, the door's that way.
If you're Italian and living abroad, you can vote to elect one of the few members of parliament which actually represent migrated Italians. This way they can still have a bit of representation, but without the same amount of influence as if they were living in the country.
Is the ratio of electors/MP different for expats vs those living in the country?
I can certainly understand the anger of the GP, apparently roughly 25% of the Croatian citizens do not live in the country. As an expat myself, having a say in how my home country is run is nice, but I feel it's a bit "easy", because I mostly do not have to live with the consequence of my choices.
I can certainly understand the anger of the GP, apparently roughly 25% of the Croatian citizens do not live in the country. As an expat myself, having a say in how my home country is run is nice, but I feel it's a bit "easy", because I mostly do not have to live with the consequence of my choices.
Yes, I don't remember the actual ratios but it's much fewer representatives per person for citizens living abroad.
>If you want to be treated as a citizen — live here and pay your taxes. If you don't, the door's that way.
Lol, that's considered "conservative right" ideology in the USA.
Lol, that's considered "conservative right" ideology in the USA.
For a bit of context, there is a bit of 'tension' between in-country Croatians and expats. Generally the latter left for greener pastures and the former stuck it out through communist rule and the war. There are at least as many Croatian expats as not.
The expats usually left because they didn't like the strictures or ideology of communism. Some had property confiscated and/or were harrassed by the authorities for whatever reason. Most of these people have a reflexive aversion of the left and are reliable right wing voters.
Those who stayed seem to be those that agree with communism to whatever degree, who were part of the communist regime in some way or those that did not mind or did not have the means or will to leave. Some have been indoctrinated to some extent, or maybe more correctly they have grown up in the culture of that time.
Many ordinary people suffered from a relatively poor quality of life under communism. Croatians received a relatively smaller share of resources and opportunities because of Serbian dominance of Yugoslavian government.
The differences are not all or even mostly political. Many locals just resent expats who avoided the misery and show up with money and a particular attitude, usually a critical one as to the dysfunction and corruption in Croatia, amongst other criticisms.
Full disclosure: I'm an expat (who lives in Croatia, for now), so that may colour my view.
The expats usually left because they didn't like the strictures or ideology of communism. Some had property confiscated and/or were harrassed by the authorities for whatever reason. Most of these people have a reflexive aversion of the left and are reliable right wing voters.
Those who stayed seem to be those that agree with communism to whatever degree, who were part of the communist regime in some way or those that did not mind or did not have the means or will to leave. Some have been indoctrinated to some extent, or maybe more correctly they have grown up in the culture of that time.
Many ordinary people suffered from a relatively poor quality of life under communism. Croatians received a relatively smaller share of resources and opportunities because of Serbian dominance of Yugoslavian government.
The differences are not all or even mostly political. Many locals just resent expats who avoided the misery and show up with money and a particular attitude, usually a critical one as to the dysfunction and corruption in Croatia, amongst other criticisms.
Full disclosure: I'm an expat (who lives in Croatia, for now), so that may colour my view.
Other nations reject our wealthy, while we prioritize herding the impoverished into the US. The future does not look so bright.
expats the citizenship-based taxation system is almost cartoonishly cruel.
If the concept of citizenship has no meaning to you beyond personal convenience, sure. If citizenship and the responsibilities inherent in it is something you take seriously, it makes a little more sense. Why should an expat who's not interested in living in and participating in the future of their former nation even be allowed to remain a citizen at all?
If the concept of citizenship has no meaning to you beyond personal convenience, sure. If citizenship and the responsibilities inherent in it is something you take seriously, it makes a little more sense. Why should an expat who's not interested in living in and participating in the future of their former nation even be allowed to remain a citizen at all?
Interesting facts about renouncing American citizenship:
- There is renunciation fee that has to be paid and currently stands at $2,350 (the highest in the world).[1]
- A final tax return will sill need to be filed. [1]
- An Expatriation tax is payable if [..] Your net worth is $2 million or more on the date of your expatriation. you will be treated as having disposed of your assets the day before your expatriation and will be subject to capital gains tax.
- The highest capital gains tax bracket in the USA is 20% [2]
Now there will be ways this is avoided but it would seem that the IRS is trying very hard make this process unappealing
[1] https://www.expatnetwork.com/how-to-renounce-us-citizenship-...
[2] https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxes/capital-gains-tax-r...
- There is renunciation fee that has to be paid and currently stands at $2,350 (the highest in the world).[1]
- A final tax return will sill need to be filed. [1]
- An Expatriation tax is payable if [..] Your net worth is $2 million or more on the date of your expatriation. you will be treated as having disposed of your assets the day before your expatriation and will be subject to capital gains tax.
- The highest capital gains tax bracket in the USA is 20% [2]
Now there will be ways this is avoided but it would seem that the IRS is trying very hard make this process unappealing
[1] https://www.expatnetwork.com/how-to-renounce-us-citizenship-...
[2] https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxes/capital-gains-tax-r...
> ...it would seem that the IRS is trying very hard make this process unappealing
IANAL, but I believe that all the unpleasantries which you note were decided by the U.S. Congress. (Most probably with the President's sign-off.) Making the IRS out to be the Real Villain(tm) here only helps a bunch of self-serving politicians to evade responsibility.
IANAL, but I believe that all the unpleasantries which you note were decided by the U.S. Congress. (Most probably with the President's sign-off.) Making the IRS out to be the Real Villain(tm) here only helps a bunch of self-serving politicians to evade responsibility.
+100
And what's wrong with this? Personally I'm very happy to see it. The idea that you make tons and tons of money by what America has worked hard to offer you and then you want to skip town because of taxes? Taxes that help pay for all the advantages that got you that wealth in the first place?
Good for Congress for trying to prevent this.
Good for Congress for trying to prevent this.
Ehhh not sure about that. America doesn't have high taxes compared to many other places to live. This isn't as clear cut as I think you think it is.
Then you’re refuting the basic premise of the article, which is that the ultra wealthy want to avoid taxes.
Why else would Eric Schmidt want to become a citizen of Cyprus, which then also allows him to live elsewhere in the EU? It’s certainly isn’t to end up laying more in taxes than he would in the US.
Why else would Eric Schmidt want to become a citizen of Cyprus, which then also allows him to live elsewhere in the EU? It’s certainly isn’t to end up laying more in taxes than he would in the US.
Being a citizen of Cyprus gives him visa free travel and work options in Europe. As he hasn't renounced US citizenship, he certainly isn't taking advantage of that for tax reasons. The article seems to imply otherwise, but that's basically what bad journalism is... strongly suggesting an incorrect interpretation of facts while still "telling the truth".
There is a real problem with the US-expst taxes when moving to a lower-taxed state... The difference is owed to the US and it's now a positive number.
Not to derail, but surely you're aware that tax-funded services taken for granted in those "many other places" are separate fees in the US.
Not sure what you mean. Please explain.
If the unpleasantries only applied to a few very rich, who were trying to skip town that way, then you'd have a decent argument.
Unfortunately, it sounds like the vast majority of targets bear no resemblance to your stereotype. And the system has no interest in discriminating between the few filthy rich town-skippers and the vast majority who are just easy victims.
Targeting all members of large group - because a small minority of them are "bad" in some emotional-button-pushing way - has a very long and disreputable history.
Unfortunately, it sounds like the vast majority of targets bear no resemblance to your stereotype. And the system has no interest in discriminating between the few filthy rich town-skippers and the vast majority who are just easy victims.
Targeting all members of large group - because a small minority of them are "bad" in some emotional-button-pushing way - has a very long and disreputable history.
That honestly seems quite reasonable. Citizenship comes with all sorts of obligations like getting drafted and serving on juries, taxes are simply the most obvious.
On the up side you can apparently still qualify for Social Security benefits.
On the up side you can apparently still qualify for Social Security benefits.
Citizens are not assets of the state
It’s a reciprocal relationship with rights and obligations on both sides not ownership. For example the FBI doesn’t invoice victims or their families when it gets involved in kidnapping cases.
Capital gains are deferred without interest until an asset it sold, that doesn’t mean there wasn’t an obligation for those years.
Capital gains are deferred without interest until an asset it sold, that doesn’t mean there wasn’t an obligation for those years.
> rights and obligations on both sides not ownership
I would say consequences of infringement are much worse for individual citizens than for the government.
If the government confiscates some of your money through "civil forfeiture", you then have to sue the government and prove the money was gained legally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...
On the other hand, try not filing your taxes. What happened to John McAfee might happen to you.
I would say consequences of infringement are much worse for individual citizens than for the government.
If the government confiscates some of your money through "civil forfeiture", you then have to sue the government and prove the money was gained legally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...
On the other hand, try not filing your taxes. What happened to John McAfee might happen to you.
It’s not an equal relationship, but governments failing their side on wide enough scale end up failing.
> FBI doesn’t invoice victims
what
what
They don’t charge money to investigate crimes.
Just like every other civilized country. The fact that it was even mentioned suggests that for Americans it might not always be the case in some situations, which is quite frightening.
It’s not an issue in American. Thing is we are talking about renouncing citizenship so the comparison is to other countries.
Looking deeply at the social counteracts of other countries is really interesting because of how many different things we take for granted aren’t universal. Free speech in the US is more limited than I would like, but it gets much worse even in countries that look civilized in other ways.
Looking deeply at the social counteracts of other countries is really interesting because of how many different things we take for granted aren’t universal. Free speech in the US is more limited than I would like, but it gets much worse even in countries that look civilized in other ways.
FBI has no jurisdiction outside the US, so you don’t gain anything this way.
Free speech in US is poorer than in most Western countries, as it fails to protect you from anything other than most government institutions. For example in US it’s fine for your employer to fire you because they don’t like what you say in your private time. Other countries provide better protection.
My question is still unanswered: why would anyone in US even think about their law enforcement invoicing the victims?
Free speech in US is poorer than in most Western countries, as it fails to protect you from anything other than most government institutions. For example in US it’s fine for your employer to fire you because they don’t like what you say in your private time. Other countries provide better protection.
My question is still unanswered: why would anyone in US even think about their law enforcement invoicing the victims?
No one is thinking that. It was an example by the other commenter of a free and valuable service provided by the government as part of their side of the bargain
A service which is always provided for free - there are no countries that invoice victims. It’s the fact that the commenter assumed it might not be free that’s frightening.
That’s the whole point, it’s always free. The commenter pointed out that it’s a valuable service that is always free as part of the social contract. You can be frightened by this if you’re really determined to be, but no sinister dystopia was implied.
It’s common for cops to require bribes to investigate crimes in developing countries. Not every time, but almost every interaction can end up as a shakedown.
https://www.fbi.gov/about/leadership-and-structure/internati...
The FBI may get involved for citizens outside the US. The international situation is complex but being or not being a US citizen can very much change FBI involvement.
PS: My question is still unanswered: why would anyone in US even think about their law enforcement invoicing the victims? It’s a concern if your considering renouncing citizenship and moving to a country where it’s a concern just as free speech should be a concern if your moving to a country without it.
The FBI may get involved for citizens outside the US. The international situation is complex but being or not being a US citizen can very much change FBI involvement.
PS: My question is still unanswered: why would anyone in US even think about their law enforcement invoicing the victims? It’s a concern if your considering renouncing citizenship and moving to a country where it’s a concern just as free speech should be a concern if your moving to a country without it.
> as it fails to protect you from anything other than most government institutions.
Depends on the state. The US isn't as simple as you're making it out to be.
Depends on the state. The US isn't as simple as you're making it out to be.
For investigating a crime the victim was involved with.
At least that's how I interpreted GP's comment.
Reciprocal relationship = either party can end it under certain circumstances. If the taxpayer wants to move, the state has no moral right to force them to stay
> Citizenship comes with all sorts of obligations like getting drafted and serving on juries
If you've already done those things, does the IRS pay you?
If you've already done those things, does the IRS pay you?
Obligations don’t work that way, do you get paid for paying your debts?
The personal benefit from the obligation to serve on juries is the option of being tried by a jury of your peers.
The personal benefit from the obligation to serve on juries is the option of being tried by a jury of your peers.
You compare obligations to debt (which do have an upfront playout) but then state there is a benefit. How does that work with debt? Why would a jury of peers be a benefit, unless you assume positive bias? How does that work with the draft?
If you’re paying an electric bill the benefit associated with the debt was receiving electricity. How does that work with debt? For debt like a credit card bill it’s the money you spent when buying stuff etc. If you meant taxes then it’s government services already received, for example a strong military.
Why would a jury of peers be a benefit, unless you assume positive bias? It’s an option, you don’t need to be tried by your peers so you would only pick it if it’s better than being judged by a judge. That doesn’t mean it’s a positive bias, you might assume judges have a negative bias.
How does that work with the draft? Look at all the countries that have been invaded, compare them to countries that haven’t been. That’s the benefit of a strong military and the existence of the draft is part of that.
Why would a jury of peers be a benefit, unless you assume positive bias? It’s an option, you don’t need to be tried by your peers so you would only pick it if it’s better than being judged by a judge. That doesn’t mean it’s a positive bias, you might assume judges have a negative bias.
How does that work with the draft? Look at all the countries that have been invaded, compare them to countries that haven’t been. That’s the benefit of a strong military and the existence of the draft is part of that.
> it’s government services already received, for example a strong military
but you no longer benefit from the military and other services abroad?
> It’s an option, you don’t need to be tried by your peers
but you are obligated to jury duty, to the extent you have to pay to leave?
> Look at all the countries that have been invaded
all all the ones that haven't? Doesn't seem like a draft is needed.
but you no longer benefit from the military and other services abroad?
> It’s an option, you don’t need to be tried by your peers
but you are obligated to jury duty, to the extent you have to pay to leave?
> Look at all the countries that have been invaded
all all the ones that haven't? Doesn't seem like a draft is needed.
While $2350 is expensive, compare that to Australia. My friend got sponsored by his partner for a partner visa and the fee is AUD7,850 for most applicants.
https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-li...
It's a huge rip-off like everything in this country.
The $2350 seem to be cheaper than fees for filing annual tax returns for the next 50 years :)
https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-li...
It's a huge rip-off like everything in this country.
The $2350 seem to be cheaper than fees for filing annual tax returns for the next 50 years :)
The fee for renouncing Australian citizenship is 265 AUD equivalent to 196 USD.
https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/citizenship/give-up-citizens...
https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/citizenship/give-up-citizens...
On the other side of the equation (getting citizenship, rather than renouncing it), here in the UK I have a Chinese friend for whom it cost over £20k to gain citizenship after she married a local. (this was the total paid to the government over, I think, a 3 year period).
It's even more expensive than that since they don't refund you the money you paid into Social Security when you renounce.
lol, as Gen Z I've more-or-less accepted that my Social Security is just setting my money on fire and dancing in a circle.
Why? It doesn’t have to be that way. Social Security has been successfully bolstered in the past and can be again. I don’t see why it can’t remain solvent for the foreseeable future…
My boomer parents felt the same way and yet they're receiving it right now. 65+ year old people are one of the most powerful voting blocs.
You do not need to be a US citizen to be eligible to collect US Social Security benefits.
https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/questions-an...
https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/questions-an...
Social Security is not a pension - this is a common misconception.
The SS tax is to pay current retirees. There's a formula that states how much you'll get when you retire, but the money you're putting in now is not being saved/invested for your benefit in the future.
The short version: Money you put into SS is not your money.
The SS tax is to pay current retirees. There's a formula that states how much you'll get when you retire, but the money you're putting in now is not being saved/invested for your benefit in the future.
The short version: Money you put into SS is not your money.
You still put a bunch of money into it on the promise that after retirement you will have income, and that promise is broken when you renounce your citizenship. Also, Social Security is closer to real pensions than you think, they're just different from the theoretical concept of a pension that isn't actually used outside of the Post Office.
You're using vague words like "promise". "Hope" would be more accurate. Someone can correct me, but if Congress passes a law tomorrow saying they're not going to pay social security after 2025, that is probably allowed. The only "promise" is to people who are currently retired.
Furthermore, if you renounce your citizenship, it is you who are choosing not to get this benefit. It is a defined benefit for citizens, and you are choosing not to be one.
As for similarity to pensions: Far from it. When the government has an excess (i.e. total SS taxes collected is greater than payouts for a given year), they are not allowed to hold it or invest it. Pensions are/were always invested, or at least held.
Furthermore, if you renounce your citizenship, it is you who are choosing not to get this benefit. It is a defined benefit for citizens, and you are choosing not to be one.
As for similarity to pensions: Far from it. When the government has an excess (i.e. total SS taxes collected is greater than payouts for a given year), they are not allowed to hold it or invest it. Pensions are/were always invested, or at least held.
> Furthermore, if you renounce your citizenship, it is you who are choosing not to get this benefit. It is a defined benefit for citizens
Individuals who renounce their US citizenship (or were never citizens) are still eligible to receive SS benefits; SS actually has very little to do with citizenship.
Individuals who renounce their US citizenship (or were never citizens) are still eligible to receive SS benefits; SS actually has very little to do with citizenship.
Why would they refund past taxes you'd paid?
The money you put into taxes went into national defense that kept you safe, roads you drove on, schools that provided an educated workforce that made the goods and services you consumed, etc...
Money put into Social Security is just lost to you unless you are renouncing your money after retirement.
Money put into Social Security is just lost to you unless you are renouncing your money after retirement.
That's a rather generous assessment of how my money was used in Iraq, for instance. That sounds glib, but if you could pick and choose which things your taxes funded or not it would kind of make the whole concept of the state untenable.
The 20% capital gains tax bracket is applicable to assets held longer than one year.
Short term gains are taxed at your normal tax rate.
Short term gains are taxed at your normal tax rate.
Can a citizenship be exchanged? For example you get my Australian passport, I get your American? Neither country loses a taxpayer this way.. ;)
I believe to renounce you must first have dual nationality. You could marry a foreigner for nationality, then (eventually) both renounce your home country.
While that is the smart way to go. The USA is one of the few country's that will allow you to become stateless.[1] But I am not sure why you would ever do that.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renunciation_of_citizenship#St...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renunciation_of_citizenship#St...
Not exchanged, but considering Australia and America are both immigrant countries, you may be able to get an Italian or Irish passport based on ancestry if your ancestors came from there.
I always wanted to start a "couchsurfing for passports" , or even airbnb. If one is a citizen, they can vet for an exchange citizen, sounds democratic to me.
"- The highest capital gains tax bracket in the USA is 20% [2]"
Not really, because they can arbitrarily change it and backdate the change at any time, and they are currently planning to raise it to 43% and backdate the change.
In truth, the US does not have a fixed capital gains rate.
Not really, because they can arbitrarily change it and backdate the change at any time, and they are currently planning to raise it to 43% and backdate the change.
In truth, the US does not have a fixed capital gains rate.
[deleted]
The stimulus checks allowed them to afford to renounce citizenship.
You're assuming everyone got a stimulus check. That's not the case.
I'm an "accidental American" who has navigated this issue and it's incredibly easy. Just don't file. Every professional that writes blogs about this has a professional duty to give legal advice but the practical advice is just don't file. Look into what exactly triggers data to be sent to the IRS under your tax treaty and the policies of your financial institutions. Being "accidental" is the key here. If you tell your bank you aren't an American and you have a non-American birthplace and birth certificate they have absolutely zero way of knowing and your information will not be sent. If you have an American birthplace you can lie and say you renounced, but this carries some risk as the IRS maliciously publishes lists of renouncers so it's possible they could guess you lied. FATCA and FBAR are egregious violations of your rights. Not even the NSA has the right to spy on Americans abroad, but the IRS can do dragnet surveillance on American financial data from foreign countries with no probable cause and no warrants. You have a duty not to comply.
> You have a duty not to comply.
If you're making income in America, you owe US tax taxes.
If you are a permanent resident of the United States, you owe US taxes.
Whether the IRS is using mafia tactics or not, what you are describing is tax evasion. There are legal ways to minimize your tax burden, but this is horrible advise.
If you're making income in America, you owe US tax taxes.
If you are a permanent resident of the United States, you owe US taxes.
Whether the IRS is using mafia tactics or not, what you are describing is tax evasion. There are legal ways to minimize your tax burden, but this is horrible advise.
In my case as an accidental American I was not born in the US, I have never lived in the US, I have never worked in the US, I receive no benefits from the US, I was ineligible for the covid stimulus, I am unable to vote in US elections. It's comical to categorize my refusal to participate in this scam as tax evasion. I don't live in the US, I live in a supposedly sovereign nation. Just as Americans pointed out the absurdity of China's new laws that target foreign HK dissidents extraterritorial overreach should always be seen as the joke that it is.
I agree that you are ethically in the right, but it is still legally "tax evasion", and therefore probably not the best advice to be given to others. I say this as someone who has personal experience with the "accidental American" status. Depending on where you are, the IRS may discover your "American" status, and the penalties could be worse. For example, Canadian banks share information with the IRS under FATCA.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fatca-tax-deal-forces-canad...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fatca-tax-deal-forces-canad...
If North Korea passes a law tomorrow saying that every person on the planet owes it $1000 in taxes, if you ignore it are you committing a crime?
Legally? You'd be breaking the law in North Korea, so technically yes, but that's not really the point here. Does North Korea have the ability to realistically threaten my assets, livelihood or freedoms? If so, then the proper legal advice here would be to pay it. We are not discussing ethics here, we're discussing whether or not following the "just ignore it" advice is a good idea or not.
In the case of the US, they have the capacity to make legitimate threats against me regardless of where I live, with zero defense provided by my sovereign nation. So what's the right move?
In the case of the US, they have the capacity to make legitimate threats against me regardless of where I live, with zero defense provided by my sovereign nation. So what's the right move?
If ethics are not a concern then the right move is whatever you can get away with. As other posters pointed out, if you don't disclose your US citizenship to foreign banks then that information is not going to make its way back to the IRS. Canada is probably the only country where you wouldn't want to try this.
Which is exactly the point I was making in my comment. And also:
> if you don't disclose your US citizenship to foreign banks then that information is not going to make its way back to the IRS
I would not assume this to be true. Certainly not without researching into any specific case more.
> if you don't disclose your US citizenship to foreign banks then that information is not going to make its way back to the IRS
I would not assume this to be true. Certainly not without researching into any specific case more.
[deleted]
Can you clarify how you are an accidental American? E.g., were you born on a US base in another country?
Wikipedia says [1]:
> U.S. law also states that a child born outside of the U.S to a U.S. citizen parent who previously spent sufficient time in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of whether the child also has the citizenship of the country of birth or another citizenship. U.S. citizens married to fellow U.S. citizens can transmit U.S. citizenship to their children if either parent has ever had a residence in the United States (without any minimum time limitation on how long they held that residence.) However, for U.S. citizens married to non-U.S. citizens, the required period of residence is longer; under the Nationality Act of 1940 and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, the required period of residence was set to ten years, five of which had to be after the age of 14. The Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1986 reduced this to five years, two of which had to be after the age of 14.
So you're automatically a citizen if you're born in the USA, if both of your parents are citizens (and at least one has resided in the USA), or if either of your parents is a citizen and lived in the USA for 5 years (2 of which after the age of 14).
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidental_American
> U.S. law also states that a child born outside of the U.S to a U.S. citizen parent who previously spent sufficient time in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of whether the child also has the citizenship of the country of birth or another citizenship. U.S. citizens married to fellow U.S. citizens can transmit U.S. citizenship to their children if either parent has ever had a residence in the United States (without any minimum time limitation on how long they held that residence.) However, for U.S. citizens married to non-U.S. citizens, the required period of residence is longer; under the Nationality Act of 1940 and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, the required period of residence was set to ten years, five of which had to be after the age of 14. The Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1986 reduced this to five years, two of which had to be after the age of 14.
So you're automatically a citizen if you're born in the USA, if both of your parents are citizens (and at least one has resided in the USA), or if either of your parents is a citizen and lived in the USA for 5 years (2 of which after the age of 14).
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidental_American
As someone who meets the third condition (one parent a US citizen and lived there for more than 5 years), it was really hard to convince the US that I was a US citizen. Every one I talked to told me to go to a country I hadn't been in since I was 5 and apply for citizenship through family sponsorship. This was more than 20 years ago and no one threatened to deport me.
After trying to get citizenship without leaving the country for about a year, I went to the post office and applied for a passport again, with every document that could possibly be relevant. The post office person looked through my pile of documents, declared my mother's passport good enough, stuffed it in the envelope, and a passport came in the mail for me. I think you may have explained to me how that worked out.
After trying to get citizenship without leaving the country for about a year, I went to the post office and applied for a passport again, with every document that could possibly be relevant. The post office person looked through my pile of documents, declared my mother's passport good enough, stuffed it in the envelope, and a passport came in the mail for me. I think you may have explained to me how that worked out.
Oh sorry, I meant this person specifically (they seemed really angry about it and/or surprised). I don’t find any of the rules surprising, so I’m genuinely curious which one is so offensive!
I'm a US expat living in Canada, and a parent of Canadian children. They are eligible for US citizenship, but don't become US citizens unless I go through a procedure to register them as such.
That's not true; they are in fact citizens under US law. They may not have an SSN or a passport, but neither is a condition for citizenship.
Also, at least from a tax perspective, if you plan on remaining a US citizen, you might benefit from getting SSNs for your kids so you can claim the child tax credit and stimulus payments for 2021.
And if they don't want to be citizens, renouncing citizenship in the 6 months immediately after they turn 18 can avoid tax complications.
https://hodgen.com/expatriation-between-age-18-and-18-12/
Also, at least from a tax perspective, if you plan on remaining a US citizen, you might benefit from getting SSNs for your kids so you can claim the child tax credit and stimulus payments for 2021.
And if they don't want to be citizens, renouncing citizenship in the 6 months immediately after they turn 18 can avoid tax complications.
https://hodgen.com/expatriation-between-age-18-and-18-12/
This comment isn't about somebody living in America. This is about somebody who doesn't live in america, has never lived there, doesn't have a passport, but are considered "american" by the IRS - somebody born in the USA to non-citizen parents while traveling for example.
And if you are not a permanent resident of the United States, making no income in America?
And then you slip up, the IRS finds out, and on a connecting flight on your way to another country you get arrested for tax evasion.
It's a misdemeanor to not file, its a felony to lie when you do file.
Ergo, they can't call Interpol to get you for not filing.
(correct me if you're a tax accountant, but I'm 99.999% positive on that first statement and 80% confident on the second)
Ergo, they can't call Interpol to get you for not filing.
(correct me if you're a tax accountant, but I'm 99.999% positive on that first statement and 80% confident on the second)
Not a tax accountant, but while just failing to file is a misdemeanor, if you actually owed money and it can be shown that you willfully attempted to evade paying taxes owed, that's a felony (I.R.C. § 7201).
Now, chances are they don't find out, or if they do you can play innocent and pay a fine. Personally, if I were in this situation I would either file, renounce, or never set foot on US soil.
Now, chances are they don't find out, or if they do you can play innocent and pay a fine. Personally, if I were in this situation I would either file, renounce, or never set foot on US soil.
It’s difficult to renounce and you never know if being in the US may become necessary.
People who renounce their American citizenship do so with the funds to overcome this or because they’re committed to living somewhere else.
People who renounce their American citizenship do so with the funds to overcome this or because they’re committed to living somewhere else.
Not that I think it's good advice but it is very rare for connecting flights to go through the US, since it requires everybody to go through immigration even if they're not staying in the US.
Eh, it's not as rare as you'd think - there's literature on how to avoid it: https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Avoiding_travel_through_the_U...
Ask John McAfee how not filing turned out.
I would not plan on transiting the US for life if I were you though
Do you ever travel in the US? Do you hold a US passport?
A couple of sources from another perspective:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-08-31/why-th...
https://theconversation.com/americans-are-renouncing-us-citi...
And one fun quote:
"Still, all American expats – even those who’ve lived abroad for decades, earn no income in the U.S., and hold no U.S. assets – must submit an annual tax return to the Internal Revenue Service. Now, ever since Congress strengthened anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financial reporting requirements, many have had to hire costly international accounting firms to do their taxes.
The consequences of noncompliance are severe: forfeiting up to 50% of all undeclared assets held overseas."
There may be some "ultra-wealthy" people doing this, but I suspect that they are not the bulk of it by a long way.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-08-31/why-th...
https://theconversation.com/americans-are-renouncing-us-citi...
And one fun quote:
"Still, all American expats – even those who’ve lived abroad for decades, earn no income in the U.S., and hold no U.S. assets – must submit an annual tax return to the Internal Revenue Service. Now, ever since Congress strengthened anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financial reporting requirements, many have had to hire costly international accounting firms to do their taxes.
The consequences of noncompliance are severe: forfeiting up to 50% of all undeclared assets held overseas."
There may be some "ultra-wealthy" people doing this, but I suspect that they are not the bulk of it by a long way.
I was unwilling to renounce and stay abroad, for a variety of reasons, so I returned to the US and decided to stay. But for a good while I lived and traveled outside the US as a digital nomad and the tax implications are immense, especially if you are a member of any corporation or LLC, have any retirement accounts, or own any property. It's an absolute nightmare to correctly file taxes, has an astronomically high audit risk (you basically /will/ be audited), and is very expensive to hire accountants that have understanding of multiple national tax laws to cover things correctly.
FATCA made this even worse. Now many companies and financial institutions abroad will refuse to do business with you if you hold US citizenship /even/ if you are a dual citizen and primary resident of the country they are based in. It's absolutely absurd how the US government treats American expats, and is in stark contrast to how British, Australian, and German expats are treated (of which there are many all over the world).
FATCA made this even worse. Now many companies and financial institutions abroad will refuse to do business with you if you hold US citizenship /even/ if you are a dual citizen and primary resident of the country they are based in. It's absolutely absurd how the US government treats American expats, and is in stark contrast to how British, Australian, and German expats are treated (of which there are many all over the world).
I was an American citizen living in Luxembourg for 3 years around 2015.
I agree - many banks did not want to let me open an account, and when BNP Paribas said they work with Americans it was a huge ordeal to open the account.
However, as a salaried employee, I did not struggle with the taxes. The IRS form was very straightforward and after deductions I didnt owe any US taxes (I made just over the equivalent of $100k USD).
IIRC the theory is that you determine your tax liability if you had made all your income in the US and you subtract the liability you incurred by your foreign tax residence. You pay the difference but only after you cross some income threshold. If you are living somewhere that 'pays more in taxes' then you wont owe anything to the US.
I can 100% understand why very wealthy people hate this system, but as a software dev making a modest living it was not onerous or unfair or difficult to manage.
I agree - many banks did not want to let me open an account, and when BNP Paribas said they work with Americans it was a huge ordeal to open the account.
However, as a salaried employee, I did not struggle with the taxes. The IRS form was very straightforward and after deductions I didnt owe any US taxes (I made just over the equivalent of $100k USD).
IIRC the theory is that you determine your tax liability if you had made all your income in the US and you subtract the liability you incurred by your foreign tax residence. You pay the difference but only after you cross some income threshold. If you are living somewhere that 'pays more in taxes' then you wont owe anything to the US.
I can 100% understand why very wealthy people hate this system, but as a software dev making a modest living it was not onerous or unfair or difficult to manage.
> I can 100% understand why very wealthy people hate this system, but as a software dev making a modest living it was not onerous or unfair or difficult to manage.
Okay, now apply your experience with this system but instead of being a salaried employee you run a <5 person LLC that is incorporated in the US that does the same work but on contract and has a small leased office. It goes from being one form and a simple exercise into a massive nightmare, even though the dollar amounts you are actually making in income aren't any higher (at the time I think my AGI was like $126K USD).
Anything off the path of salaried employee stationary in a foreign tax residence exponentially increases the complexity involved and therefore the expense to file. Most years, my accountancy bill was actually higher than the taxes owed, and it would have saved everyone quite a lot of trouble for little gain to just do away with this archaic and pointless rule which no other civilized nation has.
This is not just a problem for the very wealthy, it's a problem for anyone who does not fall in a very narrow bucket but happens to reside abroad while having US citizenship. Even in your case, where you found the process simple, you must admit it made it difficult to secure accounts and form business relationships abroad because of the tax implications and reporting implications for your possible business partners.
Okay, now apply your experience with this system but instead of being a salaried employee you run a <5 person LLC that is incorporated in the US that does the same work but on contract and has a small leased office. It goes from being one form and a simple exercise into a massive nightmare, even though the dollar amounts you are actually making in income aren't any higher (at the time I think my AGI was like $126K USD).
Anything off the path of salaried employee stationary in a foreign tax residence exponentially increases the complexity involved and therefore the expense to file. Most years, my accountancy bill was actually higher than the taxes owed, and it would have saved everyone quite a lot of trouble for little gain to just do away with this archaic and pointless rule which no other civilized nation has.
This is not just a problem for the very wealthy, it's a problem for anyone who does not fall in a very narrow bucket but happens to reside abroad while having US citizenship. Even in your case, where you found the process simple, you must admit it made it difficult to secure accounts and form business relationships abroad because of the tax implications and reporting implications for your possible business partners.
Did you file Form 2555 or Form 1116?
Were you also required to file FBAR or Form 8938?
About how much time did you spend on tax preparation yourself? If you used a paid preparer, how much did that cost you?
Were you also required to file FBAR or Form 8938?
About how much time did you spend on tax preparation yourself? If you used a paid preparer, how much did that cost you?
I have no idea what form I used. I do know that I paper filed those years and it didn't cost me money, only time, a few evenings, reading IRS publications and googling 'expat taxes please help'.
The reason I ask is because for the forms I mentioned, it's very easy to either make an error or fail to file a form you were required to.
The fact that you mentioned "paper file" is a bit worrisome. You were required to file an FBAR if you had foreign accounts (such as bank accounts) totaling more than $10,000, and given your stated income, that seems likely. FBAR must generally be done electronically, and is a separate process from your tax return.
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
The fact that you mentioned "paper file" is a bit worrisome. You were required to file an FBAR if you had foreign accounts (such as bank accounts) totaling more than $10,000, and given your stated income, that seems likely. FBAR must generally be done electronically, and is a separate process from your tax return.
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
I appreciate this info.
Normally, I found, when filling out a 1040 and walking through line by line, you are able to discover the forms you need and guide yourself quite easily. In the case of citizens living abroad, there is a publication as well that mentions everything, including all the forms and the FBAR you talk about. I found the process is quite discoverable and linear.
Also - the FBAR did not apply to me based on how I moved my money back to my domestic account, the foreign account was a current account for local bills, its balance never exceeded $5k.
Normally, I found, when filling out a 1040 and walking through line by line, you are able to discover the forms you need and guide yourself quite easily. In the case of citizens living abroad, there is a publication as well that mentions everything, including all the forms and the FBAR you talk about. I found the process is quite discoverable and linear.
Also - the FBAR did not apply to me based on how I moved my money back to my domestic account, the foreign account was a current account for local bills, its balance never exceeded $5k.
Being a Canadian, I started a tax-free savings account "TFSA" (similar to a US Roth IRA but with way less restrictions)when I turned 18 and was investing heavily in it. A few years later I would get a green card and move to the US and didn't touch the account afterwards except make a few rebalances here and there. My brokerage asked me to update my information and asked me if I was a "US" person to which I answered yes because of my greencard. A little while later I get a notification that I owe US taxes... on an account that I opened before I had anything to do with the US and that is considered a tax-free account in Canada.
The general advice is to liquidate your TFSA, ISA etc. before moving to the US.
its clear how your situation could be abused. i am not suggesting that you have done this, but that it creates an interesting loophole for the wealthy by harboring investements into other countries capital.
Lets say you are a 0.1%er who happens to live in canada. Invest everything on canadas terms, then move to the USA. receive foodstamps, welfare checks and the likes for XX years. Go back to canadian citizenship and cash out. Darn, looks like tax payers supported the ultra wealthy while they just got richer eh?
Lets say you are a 0.1%er who happens to live in canada. Invest everything on canadas terms, then move to the USA. receive foodstamps, welfare checks and the likes for XX years. Go back to canadian citizenship and cash out. Darn, looks like tax payers supported the ultra wealthy while they just got richer eh?
The TFSA is not something that can be abused by a high income individual.
It has a $6,000 yearly contribution limit.
Canada, if anything, has an investment tax scheme which favours middle class investors. For someone making millions of dollars Capital gains tax is tied to your income tax bracket in Canada so it is very likely that you would end up paying higher taxes.
Canada also has a tax and income information sharing with the USA, so someone making big bucks in investments in Canada could not benefit from means tested programs in the US.
The scenario you proposed is entirely impossible.
It has a $6,000 yearly contribution limit.
Canada, if anything, has an investment tax scheme which favours middle class investors. For someone making millions of dollars Capital gains tax is tied to your income tax bracket in Canada so it is very likely that you would end up paying higher taxes.
Canada also has a tax and income information sharing with the USA, so someone making big bucks in investments in Canada could not benefit from means tested programs in the US.
The scenario you proposed is entirely impossible.
> It has a $6,000 yearly contribution limit.
I haven't looked into the exact details of Peter Thiel's IRA, but those have a contribution limit too, and look at all the press recently about him "abusing" [0] that.
[0] I can't claim to know enough of his specific situation and the exact regulations to have an opinion on whether that's a fair characterization.
I haven't looked into the exact details of Peter Thiel's IRA, but those have a contribution limit too, and look at all the press recently about him "abusing" [0] that.
[0] I can't claim to know enough of his specific situation and the exact regulations to have an opinion on whether that's a fair characterization.
He bought paypal stock privately when it was almost worthless, which the roth ira allowed, then the stock exploded.
I mean, sure, if you can tell the future you can do what Peter did.
I don't have an axe to grind against him or what he did to be clear.
My point is that he bought private stock, something that is privileged, so it's not entirely accurate to say that all people benefit from a roth IRA equally.
I personally don't think that the average person has the ability to take similar advantage, even though they both have the same limitations on paper.
My point is that he bought private stock, something that is privileged, so it's not entirely accurate to say that all people benefit from a roth IRA equally.
I personally don't think that the average person has the ability to take similar advantage, even though they both have the same limitations on paper.
> you are a 0.1%er
> move to the USA. receive foodstamps, welfare checks and the likes for XX years
Does this seem like a good use of your time, as a 0.1%er? Collecting foodstamps?
> move to the USA. receive foodstamps, welfare checks and the likes for XX years
Does this seem like a good use of your time, as a 0.1%er? Collecting foodstamps?
Yes, most people in this situation liquidate them. Dual US / Canadian citizen here living in Canada.
While you can keep a TFSA around you'll end up paying taxes on the gains back to the states as well you need to file additional paperwork come tax time. If your TFSA gains exceed the filing requirements it might still be worth keeping. Historically you needed to file a TFSA as a foreign trust however recently the IRS has deemed them a foreign disregarded entity which reduces the filing requirements thus making it cheaper.
In your situation you could open up a US based fund with that money and Canada won't care so that's likely your best option.
While you can keep a TFSA around you'll end up paying taxes on the gains back to the states as well you need to file additional paperwork come tax time. If your TFSA gains exceed the filing requirements it might still be worth keeping. Historically you needed to file a TFSA as a foreign trust however recently the IRS has deemed them a foreign disregarded entity which reduces the filing requirements thus making it cheaper.
In your situation you could open up a US based fund with that money and Canada won't care so that's likely your best option.
TBF that is within expectations. You’d have similar issues the other way around or between different countries. It’s rather frustrating (especially because of the different standards in tax freedom) but unsurprising.
There's this idea floating around in this thread that people get rich, then get richer in and then leave to evade taxes.
If optimizing for money really was people's intention, it's much more optimal to leave before you become mega rich.
You can move to Singapore once you have $6 million to buy a visa-by-investment. There's no cap gains taxes there, so your money can compound unencumbered.
Then again, not every ex-pat who renounces their citizenship does that, maybe because they don't want to live in Singapore. Some of us ex-patriate to countries with even higher taxes than the states.
Look at the number of people ex-patriating with a grain of salt. It's like the Drake Equation, there are many factors that would allow you to narrow the 'search space', and after all is said and done, there will just be a small amount of people who have outsized influence in the states and also evading taxes.
If optimizing for money really was people's intention, it's much more optimal to leave before you become mega rich.
You can move to Singapore once you have $6 million to buy a visa-by-investment. There's no cap gains taxes there, so your money can compound unencumbered.
Then again, not every ex-pat who renounces their citizenship does that, maybe because they don't want to live in Singapore. Some of us ex-patriate to countries with even higher taxes than the states.
Look at the number of people ex-patriating with a grain of salt. It's like the Drake Equation, there are many factors that would allow you to narrow the 'search space', and after all is said and done, there will just be a small amount of people who have outsized influence in the states and also evading taxes.
>it's much more optimal to leave before you become mega rich.
It is almost as if the US provides some kind of useful, taxpayer funded, environment for becoming mega rich....
It is almost as if the US provides some kind of useful, taxpayer funded, environment for becoming mega rich....
Buying political parties?
This —- they have the wealth to initiate the process.
Citizenship by investment (CBI) is even cheaper in the Caribbean. Interestingly people from mainland China and the Middle East hit the Caribbean first for this. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that the reasons haven’t changed.
The interesting thought experiment is what would happen if the US dropped its worldwide claim to taxes. I suspect there will be a pretty big exit migration of wealthy US citizens to capitol gains tax havens like Singapore.
As an ex-pat what bothers me most is the lack of representation, I'd keep paying taxes if we actually had some virtual state. Citizens abroad are essentially gerrymandered by their last state of residence meaning there is no useful representation for those abroad. However with an estimated 9 million+ citizens living abroad ex-pats all together would represent the 10th or 11th most populace state. 9 million US citizens is similar to the population of New Jersey which has 2 senators and 12 representatives working for them. Where's my Cory Booker?
It's obviously a burden on the not-so-wealthy to be a US citizen living overseas. There's the annual requirement to file a tax return (most countries don't do this) but also the implications for opening accounts thanks to FATCA. The IRS requirement in particular needs to be addressed.
Fun fact: the US is becoming a haven for tax avoidance and privacy simply because they're forcing all this disclosure information on other countries and are completely unwilling to reciprocate.
A lot of people concentrate on the super-wealthy renouncing US citizenship. I mean that's going to happen. For people who don't know you get taxed on your holdings at current market rates when you do this. Obviously people still do this because they realize it's going to be cheaper in the long run. I don't really care about that.
What I do care about is removing the political influence of former citizens. They are technically foreigners now and there are restrictions on foreign influence on US elections. So we should be:
- Stopping former citizens from contributing to political campaigns, PACs and politically active charities;
- Companies they control or directly control should likewise be prohibited from contributing; and
- Any such organization that contributed to political candidates directly or indirectly should be forbidden from accepting foreign money or having such foreigners in any leadership or executive position.
We should probably do something about holding US real estate too but that's a whole other discussion.
Fun fact: the US is becoming a haven for tax avoidance and privacy simply because they're forcing all this disclosure information on other countries and are completely unwilling to reciprocate.
A lot of people concentrate on the super-wealthy renouncing US citizenship. I mean that's going to happen. For people who don't know you get taxed on your holdings at current market rates when you do this. Obviously people still do this because they realize it's going to be cheaper in the long run. I don't really care about that.
What I do care about is removing the political influence of former citizens. They are technically foreigners now and there are restrictions on foreign influence on US elections. So we should be:
- Stopping former citizens from contributing to political campaigns, PACs and politically active charities;
- Companies they control or directly control should likewise be prohibited from contributing; and
- Any such organization that contributed to political candidates directly or indirectly should be forbidden from accepting foreign money or having such foreigners in any leadership or executive position.
We should probably do something about holding US real estate too but that's a whole other discussion.
This title would be less click-baity if it was
'People renouncing their citizenship are wealthy'
because I don't think poor people can afford to. That says nothing about whether poor people are more or less interested in doing so.
'People renouncing their citizenship are wealthy'
because I don't think poor people can afford to. That says nothing about whether poor people are more or less interested in doing so.
I was feeling the same.
I live abroad and I'm not rich. I sometimes debate renouncing my US citizenship, but working remote in the US makes me well off here. If I had a local job making piles of money I might be more inclined to. My only complaint is that when I go to visit mom, I get endless grief from the immigration officials.
I live abroad and I'm not rich. I sometimes debate renouncing my US citizenship, but working remote in the US makes me well off here. If I had a local job making piles of money I might be more inclined to. My only complaint is that when I go to visit mom, I get endless grief from the immigration officials.
It is good that we have such process for people to push back against their government greed. Usually, the citizenry is at the mercy of it and can’t do anything about it.
You don’t like it? Fine. You have a choice and can get out.
Good safety valve. It keeps the populist governments in check.
You don’t like it? Fine. You have a choice and can get out.
Good safety valve. It keeps the populist governments in check.
Ah, yes, those greedy populist governments. They set up and facilitate extreme winner-take-all systems on the promise that they are better for everyone. How dare they ask the winners to make good on the "better for everyone" part! Such greed.
Except that the government has a process for "getting out", and that process is totally wedged right now. You don't just publish a notice in a newspaper or on FB ... you have to submit paperwork, pay fees, and have an exit interview. The government controls who gets out, and at what rate.
They're not leaving, they're just giving up their civic rights (and duties).
This is classic libertarian thinking, and I used to subscribe to it, at least to some extent. The more you think about it, though, the more it doesn't hold up.
It's just undeniably true that individual freedoms exist only to the extent that society allows them to. To think that you can opt out of society is fantasy.
It's in everybody's best interest to make sure society works well for everyone, and that kind of thinking pushes you back to the political center.
It's just undeniably true that individual freedoms exist only to the extent that society allows them to. To think that you can opt out of society is fantasy.
It's in everybody's best interest to make sure society works well for everyone, and that kind of thinking pushes you back to the political center.
> To think that you can opt out of society is fantasy.
It seems to me that the wealthy who leave the country and renounce their citizenship are effectively opting out of society. It's not a fantasy for the wealthy. We live in a competitive world where people have freedom of movement. The wealthy will tend to go where they are treated best. I think society works well for everyone when the government keeps the tax rates reasonable. Over time, a government kleptocracy causes horrific suffering for the vast majority of people.
It seems to me that the wealthy who leave the country and renounce their citizenship are effectively opting out of society. It's not a fantasy for the wealthy. We live in a competitive world where people have freedom of movement. The wealthy will tend to go where they are treated best. I think society works well for everyone when the government keeps the tax rates reasonable. Over time, a government kleptocracy causes horrific suffering for the vast majority of people.
> are effectively opting out of society
No: they get to choose which society to live in and which legal system gives them less trouble.
Everybody else has little choice.
No: they get to choose which society to live in and which legal system gives them less trouble.
Everybody else has little choice.
The observation that it is in everyone's interest for society to function is a core plank of libertarian thinking. If everyone was going to opt out then libertarianism would not work.
The core argument is that the government doesn't need to step in to fix society, because the incentives are so strong that society will sort itself out through people realising that if the ship sinks they will drown so they have to keep the water outside the boat of their own initiative.
Given that it is already in everyone's interest that the ship floats, the people loudly claiming "our enemies are trying to sink the ship!" are probably lying and should not be put in charge. However, such people infest government.
The core argument is that the government doesn't need to step in to fix society, because the incentives are so strong that society will sort itself out through people realising that if the ship sinks they will drown so they have to keep the water outside the boat of their own initiative.
Given that it is already in everyone's interest that the ship floats, the people loudly claiming "our enemies are trying to sink the ship!" are probably lying and should not be put in charge. However, such people infest government.
IMO the ship "sinking/floating" analogy is far too simplistic for this discussion. Everyone has a different idea of what the ship "floating" looks like: If you're someone with a lot of wealth, the current state of things might look completely reasonable. If you're very poor, the fact that 0.1% of people control 25% of the world's wealth might look a lot less like society is functioning correctly. Society could easily "sort itself out" into a stable state which happily oppresses a great many people, just based on individual incentives.
If you're worried about people being oppressed, moving away from basic principles of freedom and liberty is probably not the path you want to take.
If libertarianism would result in a great many oppressed people, any sort of centralisation of power will result in even more oppressed people. Beefing up government power is no solution to oppression; the worst oppressors are invariably governments. The worst of the great catastrophes and oppression of the last century were perpetrated by strong centralised governments.
If libertarianism would result in a great many oppressed people, any sort of centralisation of power will result in even more oppressed people. Beefing up government power is no solution to oppression; the worst oppressors are invariably governments. The worst of the great catastrophes and oppression of the last century were perpetrated by strong centralised governments.
> The worst of the great catastrophes and oppression of the last century were perpetrated by strong centralised governments.
Absolutely. It's a good thing I'm not calling for massively beefing up government then, I'm just advocating that tax laws exist & are enforced, so as to redistribute wealth, which I don't view as oppressive.
> If libertarianism would result in a great many oppressed people, any sort of centralisation of power will result in even more oppressed people.
I disagree with the implied premise that there is not a "centralisation of power" under libertarianism. While there isn't a state to have a monopoly on violence, there can certainly be a centralisation of economic power. And when we rely on money to pay rent, afford food, pay for healthcare etc, economic power is functionally equivalent to power in general.
> the worst oppressors are invariably governments
I wouldn't say invariably. Consider the United Fruit Company for example, or the current prevalence of child labour in tech company supply chains (e.g: Glencore, Zhejiang Huayou Cobalt).
Absolutely. It's a good thing I'm not calling for massively beefing up government then, I'm just advocating that tax laws exist & are enforced, so as to redistribute wealth, which I don't view as oppressive.
> If libertarianism would result in a great many oppressed people, any sort of centralisation of power will result in even more oppressed people.
I disagree with the implied premise that there is not a "centralisation of power" under libertarianism. While there isn't a state to have a monopoly on violence, there can certainly be a centralisation of economic power. And when we rely on money to pay rent, afford food, pay for healthcare etc, economic power is functionally equivalent to power in general.
> the worst oppressors are invariably governments
I wouldn't say invariably. Consider the United Fruit Company for example, or the current prevalence of child labour in tech company supply chains (e.g: Glencore, Zhejiang Huayou Cobalt).
> I'm just advocating that tax laws exist & are enforced, so as to redistribute wealth, which I don't view as oppressive
Laws are strongly enforced in this country (USA).
Where is the bar for "oppressive"? I come from a country that thought that 70%+ taxation was acceptable. In the USA, we are now at 60%+ (across federal, state, local). It sure sounds oppressive to me and one way out is to give the choice to people to opt out.
Laws are strongly enforced in this country (USA).
Where is the bar for "oppressive"? I come from a country that thought that 70%+ taxation was acceptable. In the USA, we are now at 60%+ (across federal, state, local). It sure sounds oppressive to me and one way out is to give the choice to people to opt out.
Do you have a source for the 60%+ number?
I think paying 60% tax or higher on income above a certain threshold (e.g: $300,000, just throwing a number out there, so you'd pay 60% tax on $1 if you were earning $300,001, and a lower tax rate for the lower portion) is reasonable.
Regardless, sure, one way is to give the choice to opt out, another is just to lower taxes if it's generally agreed they're too high.
I think paying 60% tax or higher on income above a certain threshold (e.g: $300,000, just throwing a number out there, so you'd pay 60% tax on $1 if you were earning $300,001, and a lower tax rate for the lower portion) is reasonable.
Regardless, sure, one way is to give the choice to opt out, another is just to lower taxes if it's generally agreed they're too high.
That 60% tax number is false.
What country ever taxes at 70% overall? The US used to have federal income upper marginal rates in the 90% range, but that doesn't mean that you pay 90% of your income as tax.
What country ever taxes at 70% overall? The US used to have federal income upper marginal rates in the 90% range, but that doesn't mean that you pay 90% of your income as tax.
> I'm just advocating that tax laws exist & are enforced, so as to redistribute wealth, which I don't view as oppressive.
There is almost nowhere on earth that does wealth redistribution. Most taxes are based on income. Wealth distribution has traditionally failed so hard that there aren't even serious attempts any more.
> I disagree with the implied premise that there is not a "centralisation of power" under libertarianism.
That is impossible so it isn't a premise of anything. Libertarianism is trying to minimise the centralisation of power.
> ... consider the United Fruit Company for example ...
I'll admit to not having researched the UFC particularly closely, but wasn't its mode of operation quite close to getting the government to do a lot of its dirty work? I'd assume typically it was co-opting taxes.
> ...or the current prevalence of child labour in tech company supply chains (e.g: Glencore, Zhejiang Huayou Cobalt)...
Look, if you have child labour in your mine you've mucked up and you're probably leaving a lot of money on the table. Children aren't good workers, by and large. Mining tends to favour experienced workers driving large, expensive, well maintained machines. If you put a kid in one of those they'll wreck it.
Particularly I doubt Glencore is seriously using child labour because they run their mines to make a profit. They'd be trying to keep them out. Not to mention the political backlash.
There is almost nowhere on earth that does wealth redistribution. Most taxes are based on income. Wealth distribution has traditionally failed so hard that there aren't even serious attempts any more.
> I disagree with the implied premise that there is not a "centralisation of power" under libertarianism.
That is impossible so it isn't a premise of anything. Libertarianism is trying to minimise the centralisation of power.
> ... consider the United Fruit Company for example ...
I'll admit to not having researched the UFC particularly closely, but wasn't its mode of operation quite close to getting the government to do a lot of its dirty work? I'd assume typically it was co-opting taxes.
> ...or the current prevalence of child labour in tech company supply chains (e.g: Glencore, Zhejiang Huayou Cobalt)...
Look, if you have child labour in your mine you've mucked up and you're probably leaving a lot of money on the table. Children aren't good workers, by and large. Mining tends to favour experienced workers driving large, expensive, well maintained machines. If you put a kid in one of those they'll wreck it.
Particularly I doubt Glencore is seriously using child labour because they run their mines to make a profit. They'd be trying to keep them out. Not to mention the political backlash.
Lots of not so wealthy people doing it as well, simply to get rid of the hassle and to be able to do regular banking abroad. Plenty of banks simply refuse to do business with American passport holders.
it's not just about taxes. US Citizens who live overseas can't invest in what are effectively foreign mutual funds (PFIC in IRS parlance). While retirement plans are generally exempted if there's a tax treaty, that doesn't help other forms of money one might get.
Your local government gives your child a grant of money each month to be invested in a choice of funds? You're a US citizen? sorry, you're out of luck, this makes doing taxes effectively very very difficult.
Your local government gives your child a grant of money each month to be invested in a choice of funds? You're a US citizen? sorry, you're out of luck, this makes doing taxes effectively very very difficult.
Conversely, you can't buy US funds as a European resident due to PRIIPs requirements:
https://www.justetf.com/ch/news/etf/us-domiciled-etfs.html
Many of the comments here are preposterous. I am a socialist by conviction, my whole life, and strongly believe the wealthy should pay their fair share.
But being a Canadian and knowing many Americans who have come here to work -- making prosperous but not insane professional class incomes -- and still having to file with the IRS, often having to pay into the IRS (without receiving services back in the US) and having their Canadian retirement funds messed with by the IRS, I find this whole thing baffling. No other western nation does this, and it's unjust. why would this forum -- full of people in the tech industry making a good living -- try to justify this?
Put this another way: should you cross the border into Canada and take up residency here (for a job, or because your spouse lives here, or because you like it here) you will now be effectively double-taxed for the rest of your time here.
This from a country that supposedly started its war of independence over the issue of taxation without representation?
Like I said, preposterous. Glad my mother and myself never applied for the dual citizenship we could in theory be entitled to. What a curse that would be.
Yes, make the seriously wealthy pay their share. But most of the people suffering from this situation (and often trying to renounce their citizenships in many cases not able to) are your peers in your industry.
But being a Canadian and knowing many Americans who have come here to work -- making prosperous but not insane professional class incomes -- and still having to file with the IRS, often having to pay into the IRS (without receiving services back in the US) and having their Canadian retirement funds messed with by the IRS, I find this whole thing baffling. No other western nation does this, and it's unjust. why would this forum -- full of people in the tech industry making a good living -- try to justify this?
Put this another way: should you cross the border into Canada and take up residency here (for a job, or because your spouse lives here, or because you like it here) you will now be effectively double-taxed for the rest of your time here.
This from a country that supposedly started its war of independence over the issue of taxation without representation?
Like I said, preposterous. Glad my mother and myself never applied for the dual citizenship we could in theory be entitled to. What a curse that would be.
Yes, make the seriously wealthy pay their share. But most of the people suffering from this situation (and often trying to renounce their citizenships in many cases not able to) are your peers in your industry.
Right. Back when i was living in Germany we were part of a very international community. I learned about the USA taxes craze when our poor American friend had to file his US taxes. Everyone in the group was like WHAT? My opinion is that it's a quite abusive practice.
However I've heard some people say it is worth the hassle so that you can save your passport everywhere saying "I'm American " and getting some sort of special treatment. Or that your embassy saves you from some crazy scenario you could get into as an expat.
However I've heard some people say it is worth the hassle so that you can save your passport everywhere saying "I'm American " and getting some sort of special treatment. Or that your embassy saves you from some crazy scenario you could get into as an expat.
It's completely corrupt. I don't know why we cannot change it.
Remember that you need not ever even have been to America to be a citizen. Second, America can decide who is a citizen according to their own laws, which is a bit of a conflict of interest.
So currently children of Americans are American, but there's no reason they couldn't arbitrarily decide that grand children, or great grandchildren are as well. Or if you want to be really silly, in theory they could grant citizenship to anyone if they amended the laws to do so.
So ive been given a status at birth by a foreign country that I have no wish for. They then grant me the privilege of paying them to renounce the status that they declared me to have!
Why thank you land of the free!
Remember that you need not ever even have been to America to be a citizen. Second, America can decide who is a citizen according to their own laws, which is a bit of a conflict of interest.
So currently children of Americans are American, but there's no reason they couldn't arbitrarily decide that grand children, or great grandchildren are as well. Or if you want to be really silly, in theory they could grant citizenship to anyone if they amended the laws to do so.
So ive been given a status at birth by a foreign country that I have no wish for. They then grant me the privilege of paying them to renounce the status that they declared me to have!
Why thank you land of the free!
This does happen. People get unwanted US citizenship have to renounce. Rediculous to tax someone for that
Wow. Eric Schmidt, Cyrpruscian. Cypricite? Cyprosii?
The real question here is what the context and amounts of money involved are. % figures in small numbers are useless, a few billion dollars means nothing to America. It isn't even clear to me that this is evidence the "people will stay, even if taxes rise!" crowd have to admit a mistake.
And the US has declared a War Against American Citizens Investing in Foreign Countries. The restrictions Americans face on opening a foreign bank account are quite stunning from what rumours I've heard.
The real question here is what the context and amounts of money involved are. % figures in small numbers are useless, a few billion dollars means nothing to America. It isn't even clear to me that this is evidence the "people will stay, even if taxes rise!" crowd have to admit a mistake.
And the US has declared a War Against American Citizens Investing in Foreign Countries. The restrictions Americans face on opening a foreign bank account are quite stunning from what rumours I've heard.
Soo, could a senior engineer that's lived here since he was three and pays absurd amount of taxes every year get a green card yet???
I surely hope so. I was wondering too about non citizens who pay taxes, should they become ones?
FACTA
Rouge state that is using its economic might (and implied brute force) to bend foreign banks to their nefarious will
For one thing they are cornering the market on industrial scale money laundering. Making American states the last place standing where unattributable companies can be formed.
End of empire - a dangerous time.
Rouge state that is using its economic might (and implied brute force) to bend foreign banks to their nefarious will
For one thing they are cornering the market on industrial scale money laundering. Making American states the last place standing where unattributable companies can be formed.
End of empire - a dangerous time.
A lot of people who take this drastic step are tech zillionaires: Eric Schmidt, the former Alphabet CEO, has applied to become a citizen of Cyprus.
This is such lazy reporting. Is there any data showing the connection to tech? Is there any indication that Eric Schmidt would renounce his American citizenship if he becomes Cypriot? What is a zillionaires?
This is such lazy reporting. Is there any data showing the connection to tech? Is there any indication that Eric Schmidt would renounce his American citizenship if he becomes Cypriot? What is a zillionaires?
Overseas American here. The whole paying tax and getting nothing out of it really sucks. I’ve been out over 10 years, here are some of my good and bad experiences.
Good: 1. When I first got here, super cheap drinks put on by the marines at the US embassy. People would get wasted and it was an obvious security threat so those parties don’t happen anymore.
Bad: 1. No access to covid vaccine despite paying taxes and not having vaccine access in local country for a while. This was a hot topic in many US expat communities. Globally, Embassy and consulate staff were all vaccinated but it was “bad optics” for overseas citizens to have vax access. 2. Brother (also citizen) was on a trip to Kilimanjaro as covid was kicking off. The Europe travel ban was announced so I tried calling the embassy for travel advice, not even a return call. 3. While I haven’t personally needed it, if the doo-doo hits the fan, you’re on your own. You pay for the cost of your own evac, even if it’s a Govt flight. 4. The annual pain and cost of tax filing and bank account reporting. 5. The ongoing pain of trying to get financial services as an overseas US citizen. Banks, stock brokers, etc don’t want you.
It’s my understanding that in French government, they have a specific representative for overseas citizens. In the US, our voices are scattered across 50 states (and homelanders don’t care about us) so we always get shaft.
All that being said, I have no plans to renounce.
Good: 1. When I first got here, super cheap drinks put on by the marines at the US embassy. People would get wasted and it was an obvious security threat so those parties don’t happen anymore.
Bad: 1. No access to covid vaccine despite paying taxes and not having vaccine access in local country for a while. This was a hot topic in many US expat communities. Globally, Embassy and consulate staff were all vaccinated but it was “bad optics” for overseas citizens to have vax access. 2. Brother (also citizen) was on a trip to Kilimanjaro as covid was kicking off. The Europe travel ban was announced so I tried calling the embassy for travel advice, not even a return call. 3. While I haven’t personally needed it, if the doo-doo hits the fan, you’re on your own. You pay for the cost of your own evac, even if it’s a Govt flight. 4. The annual pain and cost of tax filing and bank account reporting. 5. The ongoing pain of trying to get financial services as an overseas US citizen. Banks, stock brokers, etc don’t want you.
It’s my understanding that in French government, they have a specific representative for overseas citizens. In the US, our voices are scattered across 50 states (and homelanders don’t care about us) so we always get shaft.
All that being said, I have no plans to renounce.
> 1. No access to covid vaccine
Countries were not vaccinating permanent residents? I had no problem getting a vaccine as a foreigner in Turkey. I thought all countries would be like that.
Countries were not vaccinating permanent residents? I had no problem getting a vaccine as a foreigner in Turkey. I thought all countries would be like that.
I got the vax eventually. Given that I was a foreigner and under 40, I was at the back of the line to get my shots. My family back stateside were fully vaxxed a good 4 to 5 months ahead of me.
While the taxation due to US citizenship has occurred now for a hundred years, only now is the US govt enforcing it, mainly due to the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) signed into law by Obama.
How many of those never even lived in the U.S. but where born there and left as babies?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/10/27/us-citizensh...
In this case it was 'only' a nurse, but if she'd made $2 million she would be on that list, right?
[deleted]
I would be happy to pay taxes if I thought that my tax money was being used well.
I wonder if these mega rich are leaving to avoid paying taxes to a what they view as a mismanaged governmental system because they think they can do a better job of distributing their money and making the world a better place.
I wonder if these mega rich are leaving to avoid paying taxes to a what they view as a mismanaged governmental system because they think they can do a better job of distributing their money and making the world a better place.
This can backfire horribly no matter which citizenship you are renouncing. Conrad Black renounced his Canadian citizenship so that he could take a seat in the British House of Lords. Then he was convicted of fraud charges in the USA.
He had a hell of a time getting back into Canada after that!
He had a hell of a time getting back into Canada after that!
They’ve been allowed for decades to avoid paying for the infrastructure and management of the country while simultaneously holding most of the influence.
“Renouncing citizenship” means they’ll give up none of the influence, lose the taxes, live how and wherever they want.
The best thing to do is forbid them re-entry into the country nor to hold controlling interest in any company in the US.
Faced with actual consequences and true separation from the actual thing they care about (their source of wealth, not the country) they will reconsider. I’m not sure if this is a net plus, as they are a selfish lot.
“Renouncing citizenship” means they’ll give up none of the influence, lose the taxes, live how and wherever they want.
The best thing to do is forbid them re-entry into the country nor to hold controlling interest in any company in the US.
Faced with actual consequences and true separation from the actual thing they care about (their source of wealth, not the country) they will reconsider. I’m not sure if this is a net plus, as they are a selfish lot.
You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about who is giving up citizenship here. Obviously there are some high profile people who are still highly involved with the US, but I'd imagine a lot of folks doing this are those who don't live in America and don't want to deal with the hassle and cost of filing US tax returns every year when they earn no money in the US.
tartoran(1)
> while simultaneously holding most of the influence.
There are 20 million millionaires in the states. This is not even 10,000 people year over year with assets, not even net worth, over $2 million. This is a tiny fraction of the population, most of whom are contrarian or pursue an alternative lifestyle, given that they are living abroad.
I would hardly call someone with $2 million as having outsized influenced, they're barely upper middle class or be able to afford a house in San Francisco. If we assume this distribution obey a power-law, there are a small percentage of individuals here there who are ultra ultra wealthy to have that influence.
There are ideological reasons to renounce citizenship, and maybe having a small amount of wealth enables to pursue this option as it involves legal fees and also affordance of living off investment income. There are likely many poor people who would like to leave to, but don't have the financial means to. The data set will be biased towards those who can afford the process.
Furthermore, renouncement of citizenship involves exit taxes, on which people have already paid taxes.
> The best thing to do is forbid them re-entry into the country
On what legal grounds? They can't enter on a tourist visa? To visit a dying friend or family member one last time?
> nor to hold controlling interest in any company in the US.
Then we should stop all foreign investments and investors.
There are 20 million millionaires in the states. This is not even 10,000 people year over year with assets, not even net worth, over $2 million. This is a tiny fraction of the population, most of whom are contrarian or pursue an alternative lifestyle, given that they are living abroad.
I would hardly call someone with $2 million as having outsized influenced, they're barely upper middle class or be able to afford a house in San Francisco. If we assume this distribution obey a power-law, there are a small percentage of individuals here there who are ultra ultra wealthy to have that influence.
There are ideological reasons to renounce citizenship, and maybe having a small amount of wealth enables to pursue this option as it involves legal fees and also affordance of living off investment income. There are likely many poor people who would like to leave to, but don't have the financial means to. The data set will be biased towards those who can afford the process.
Furthermore, renouncement of citizenship involves exit taxes, on which people have already paid taxes.
> The best thing to do is forbid them re-entry into the country
On what legal grounds? They can't enter on a tourist visa? To visit a dying friend or family member one last time?
> nor to hold controlling interest in any company in the US.
Then we should stop all foreign investments and investors.
> The best thing to do is forbid them re-entry into the country
Given the track-record lefty authoritarianism has, I'm always a little nauseated to see people pull out the truncheon and jack-boots to enforce "economic justice". That and suggestions like this don't even make any sense, and rarely ever do. It always looks to me like retribution is the aim here, rather than effective economic policy.
Given the track-record lefty authoritarianism has, I'm always a little nauseated to see people pull out the truncheon and jack-boots to enforce "economic justice". That and suggestions like this don't even make any sense, and rarely ever do. It always looks to me like retribution is the aim here, rather than effective economic policy.
Well, now, let's not paint "authoritarianism" as "lefty". Some Marx-reading student on campus is not exactly a threat, is it?
The ultra-left sentiment is, indeed, anti-liberal at its core, but it is still an irrelevant fringe.
The actual, viable threat of authoritarianism is coming from the opposite side, which is a spit away from holding absolute power, here in the States, at least. And then, it's on.
The ultra-left sentiment is, indeed, anti-liberal at its core, but it is still an irrelevant fringe.
The actual, viable threat of authoritarianism is coming from the opposite side, which is a spit away from holding absolute power, here in the States, at least. And then, it's on.
This is a complete misrepresentation of my point. I never tried to 'paint "authoritarianism" as "lefty"'. I specified there's an issue with lefties who are also authoritarians. If you don't think that can exist and if you think it's not that big of a deal, I suggest you take a look at the latter-half of the 20th century. It's pretty uncharitable to paint my argument as being afraid of a student on a campus who's read the Communist Manifesto. That's not even in my argument and requires a lot of bad-faith interpolation to get to from what I said.
> viable threat of authoritarianism is coming from the opposite side
This is nothing more than whataboutism. There's authoritarians on both sides. They're both just as dangerous in the end-game. In Canada, it's the left mainly. In the US, there's highly vocal, and influential to public opinion, left wing authoritarians. In Canada lefty authoritarianism isn't just a fringe, it's mainstream. This is true in a lot of places too. I'm not sure why some folks insist on downplaying the risk of authoritarianism when it comes from the left as opposed to the right. Both kill just as many people, one just uses gas where the other uses starvation.
> viable threat of authoritarianism is coming from the opposite side
This is nothing more than whataboutism. There's authoritarians on both sides. They're both just as dangerous in the end-game. In Canada, it's the left mainly. In the US, there's highly vocal, and influential to public opinion, left wing authoritarians. In Canada lefty authoritarianism isn't just a fringe, it's mainstream. This is true in a lot of places too. I'm not sure why some folks insist on downplaying the risk of authoritarianism when it comes from the left as opposed to the right. Both kill just as many people, one just uses gas where the other uses starvation.
> Both kill just as many people
Let's be honest here, lefty authoritarianism has historically killed way more people in total.
Fortunately, righty authoritarianism was stopped; unfortunately lefty authoritarianism wasn't.
Let's be honest here, lefty authoritarianism has historically killed way more people in total.
Fortunately, righty authoritarianism was stopped; unfortunately lefty authoritarianism wasn't.
You're correct. And the reasoning behind having not stopped lefty authoritarianism is actually very interesting and complex. At least one American general got ousted from his position after suggesting the USSR be subjugated after the Second World War.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I'm not sure subjugation of Communist states by force would have lead to a better outcome, historically.
I just find it fascinating and a bit sad that authoritarianism is often seen as somehow better, if it comes from the left.
If people truly value democracy and freedom, authoritarianism should be opposed regardless of its underlying political color.
I just find it fascinating and a bit sad that authoritarianism is often seen as somehow better, if it comes from the left.
If people truly value democracy and freedom, authoritarianism should be opposed regardless of its underlying political color.
> bit sad that authoritarianism is often seen as somehow better, if it comes from the left
This is exactly the train of thought I had thrown at me by another commenter who was insistent on bringing up the fact that the right wing is "worse" somehow. You're right, it is very disappointing to see.
This is exactly the train of thought I had thrown at me by another commenter who was insistent on bringing up the fact that the right wing is "worse" somehow. You're right, it is very disappointing to see.
"highly vocal", "influential to public opinion". I am sorry, these are just words. Prove that it's influential.
Is there an effort by these "loud" individuals to drive a focused disinformation campaign targeted at nullifying legitimate votes? One third of the United States is entirely sold on it. That is quite "influential", I would say, and presents clear and present danger.
Is there an effort by these "loud" individuals to drive a focused disinformation campaign targeted at nullifying legitimate votes? One third of the United States is entirely sold on it. That is quite "influential", I would say, and presents clear and present danger.
This is just whataboutism again. There's nothing constructive to say to someone who's entrenched in ideology like you clearly are. I'm not taking about the right, and never have been. The right is irrelevant in this conversation. All you have done is derail this into but the other guys are bad too. Did I say "the right is fine?" No, I explicitly did not. I actually said both are tyrants when they can be.
You've addressed nothing I've said and launched a demand for sources on cherry-picked words from the point I made. I don't want to, and won't, argue with ideology and party lines.
You've made nearly identical points to me just about the right for some reason, despite the fact that I'm not even talking about them. I've used the word 'right' once in any other comment until this one. Not sure why you're trying to turn this into a right-left partisan shit-slinging match. Not every discussion of the left necessitates a discussion about the right's negative traits, and vice-versa. If you truly believe this, I suggest you get your head out of American partisan ideology.
You've addressed nothing I've said and launched a demand for sources on cherry-picked words from the point I made. I don't want to, and won't, argue with ideology and party lines.
You've made nearly identical points to me just about the right for some reason, despite the fact that I'm not even talking about them. I've used the word 'right' once in any other comment until this one. Not sure why you're trying to turn this into a right-left partisan shit-slinging match. Not every discussion of the left necessitates a discussion about the right's negative traits, and vice-versa. If you truly believe this, I suggest you get your head out of American partisan ideology.
Unless there are more than 20 million millionaires, you're talking about the top 6 percent of the wealth distribution. I wouldn't call that particular percentile "barely middle class". That term probably should be reserved for the 60th percentile, no? Middle being 60 to 40? 70 to 30?
Edit: fixed my percentile thanks to child comment!
Edit: fixed my percentile thanks to child comment!
> "barely middle class".
Inflation. Being a millionaire or having a six figure salaries used to have much more weight during the 80s.
Pretty much any senior level engineer at FANG can be a millionaire if they saved, but they can barely afford a standalone home in San Francisco. What does the term 'middle class' even mean if they can't afford a home?
Only 20% of millionaires surveyed feel they're rich.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/12/net-worth-to-be-considered-w...
Inflation. Being a millionaire or having a six figure salaries used to have much more weight during the 80s.
Pretty much any senior level engineer at FANG can be a millionaire if they saved, but they can barely afford a standalone home in San Francisco. What does the term 'middle class' even mean if they can't afford a home?
Only 20% of millionaires surveyed feel they're rich.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/12/net-worth-to-be-considered-w...
Senior-level engineers at a FAANGs are already a pretty rare and prestigious class of people. I'm a reasonably intelligent person and I've failed to pass the hiring bar at every FAANG.
And of course they don't "feel" rich. Lifestyle inflation is a thing. Trade the Civic for a Tesla; send the kids to private school; buy organic groceries; take international vacations every year or so; yet still find the means to save more money each year than the average household in the USA earns. Feeling is a state of mind, not a state of being.
And of course they don't "feel" rich. Lifestyle inflation is a thing. Trade the Civic for a Tesla; send the kids to private school; buy organic groceries; take international vacations every year or so; yet still find the means to save more money each year than the average household in the USA earns. Feeling is a state of mind, not a state of being.
> Unless there are more than 20 million millionaires, you're talking about the top 0.6 percent of the wealth distribution
6 percent
6 percent
You're including non-adults (330m population @ 6%). It's closer to 8% of the adult US population. Not very many people under 18 are millionaires or reasonably likely to be. The non-adults in question fall under the millionaire household grouping.
And if anyone is interested in the household wealth distribution (as of 1Q21):
Top 1%: $41.5 trillion | 90%-99%: $48.8 trillion | 50-90%: $36.5 trillion | bottom 50%: $2.6 trillion
$129.5 trillion total household assets.
There are around 128 million households in the US. The average American household is now worth a million dollars (the median is obviously far lower).
That top 1% of US households - 1.28 million households - holds an average of roughly $32 million in assets.
And if anyone is interested in the household wealth distribution (as of 1Q21):
Top 1%: $41.5 trillion | 90%-99%: $48.8 trillion | 50-90%: $36.5 trillion | bottom 50%: $2.6 trillion
$129.5 trillion total household assets.
There are around 128 million households in the US. The average American household is now worth a million dollars (the median is obviously far lower).
That top 1% of US households - 1.28 million households - holds an average of roughly $32 million in assets.
$2 million is the minimum to be listed - it is not the median, let alone the mean. Eric Schmidt alone has wealth equivalent to 10,000 people with a “mere” $2 million.
Yes, for every 10,000 millionaires we have a few Eric Schmidts.
There are still hundreds of billionaires in the states, and they can still access tax havens regardless of renouncing citizenship.
There are still hundreds of billionaires in the states, and they can still access tax havens regardless of renouncing citizenship.
> They’ve been allowed for decades to avoid paying for the infrastructure and management of the country while simultaneously holding most of the influence.
Maybe you didn't know this but Americans living overseas still have to file and pay US taxes, often getting double-taxed buy two different countries - and often by a higher tax country than the US.
In fact, the US is one of only two countries in the world with this arrangement. I'm an American living overseas and it's a bit of a logical nightmare dealing with all the requirements. Even opening a simple checking account is difficult now for Americans overseas.
Americans who haven't lived overseas or haven't traveled much often have difficulty empathizing. But when we were living in the US, I would have found it very strange if not absurd if my non-US born wife had to file and pay taxes to her country of birth.
Maybe you didn't know this but Americans living overseas still have to file and pay US taxes, often getting double-taxed buy two different countries - and often by a higher tax country than the US.
In fact, the US is one of only two countries in the world with this arrangement. I'm an American living overseas and it's a bit of a logical nightmare dealing with all the requirements. Even opening a simple checking account is difficult now for Americans overseas.
Americans who haven't lived overseas or haven't traveled much often have difficulty empathizing. But when we were living in the US, I would have found it very strange if not absurd if my non-US born wife had to file and pay taxes to her country of birth.
> often getting double-taxed buy two different countries - and often by a higher tax country than the US.
If there's a tax treaty between the two countries, they're not going to be double taxed. They will simply pay tax at the higher-country-rate, and owe nothing to the other.
If there's no tax treaty ... I'm not familiar with how that works. The US has tax treaties with many countries around the world, especially the OECD nations.
If there's a tax treaty between the two countries, they're not going to be double taxed. They will simply pay tax at the higher-country-rate, and owe nothing to the other.
If there's no tax treaty ... I'm not familiar with how that works. The US has tax treaties with many countries around the world, especially the OECD nations.
I think gp was referring to how capital gains aren't taxed until realized. Having billions in unrealized gains gives you influence, even though you didn't yet pay tax on it.
However, when you relinquish your citizenship you pay an exit tax which is more or less equivalent to what you'd pay if you sold all your assets and paid gains taxes, so I'm not sure how this move really helps billionaires, except that they don't have to pay taxes on future gains.
However, when you relinquish your citizenship you pay an exit tax which is more or less equivalent to what you'd pay if you sold all your assets and paid gains taxes, so I'm not sure how this move really helps billionaires, except that they don't have to pay taxes on future gains.
> I'm not sure how this move really helps billionaires
I am sure they never, ever, ever lie about their assets.
I am sure they never, ever, ever lie about their assets.
If a person has no income or capital gains from the U.S. and doesn’t live in the U.S. shouldn’t they be exempt from paying U.S. taxes? Also, shouldn’t foreign financial institutions be exempt from reporting to the U.S. about financial activities of U.S. citizens when they are outside the U.S.? I think the answer to both questions ought to be yes.
EDIT: I’m aware of the rules regarding income taxes for Americans based on their citizenship and not on where the income was earned. My questions address this and by saying ‘yes’ to them I’m indicating that these rules are dumb in my opinion.
EDIT: I’m aware of the rules regarding income taxes for Americans based on their citizenship and not on where the income was earned. My questions address this and by saying ‘yes’ to them I’m indicating that these rules are dumb in my opinion.
"If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, the rules for filing income, estate, and gift tax returns and paying estimated tax are generally the same whether you are in the United States or abroad. Your worldwide income is subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where you reside." - per the IRS (https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/taxp...)
As the article mentions, the USA and Eritrea tax based on citizenship, not residence.
Ought to, but US citizens must still report taxes every year on all global income. Some amount is exempt, though one still needs to file.
[deleted]
Foreign banks in nations with treaties with the United States require you to file a special form to the IRS when opening a bank account, furthermore they will report information on your bank account to the US government.
Wouldn't this create loopholes? A US citizen could leave the US to make foreign investments, then come back to the US and be exempt on taxes on this foreign investments while enjoying the benefits of being in the US and not paying their share of taxes.
Most countries tax worldwide income of their _residents_ (not citizens). So in your scenario, you'd end up paying tax on the foreign investments if you profit from it when you resume being a US resident. Unless you don't declare the foreign assets, which would be illegal (gotta file an FBAR each year).
There's no loophole here, a large majority of countries work this way, and OECD countries certainly do (although some have different treatments for short term residents). Usually the logic is: if you don't pay taxes in country A, you'll pay in country B anyways. And you'll pay an exit tax when you go from country A to B in many cases, so country A gets their cut.
There's no loophole here, a large majority of countries work this way, and OECD countries certainly do (although some have different treatments for short term residents). Usually the logic is: if you don't pay taxes in country A, you'll pay in country B anyways. And you'll pay an exit tax when you go from country A to B in many cases, so country A gets their cut.
Most civilized countries determine tax status based on where the person lived for the year. Reporting how much you earn overseas is one thing, but paying taxes twice while living and earning overseas is extraordinarily cruel.
A lot of assumptions.
Maybe people no longer want to live in US and it is wealthy that have it easier to actually go through with this?
Or maybe they actually live somewhere else and don't like paying their taxes TWICE. Almost every country in the world (except US) requires taxes based on residency, not citizenship.
For example, being Pole, if I spend more than 180 days in Sweden, I now owe taxes in Sweden but no longer owe them in Poland. That is because Poland recognizes that, while I am Polish citizen, I actually was Swedish resident during that tax year. And have an agreement with Sweden so that it is clear where I have to pay my taxes.
The US doesn't want to play nice and will only provide you with a little bit of credit for the tax you had to pay in another country. But if you earned a lot, you now have to pay it twice.
I actually know 2 or 3 people that work here in Poland that resigned their US citizenship for exactly this reason. Because IRS will hunt you down and demand your taxes even if you don't set foot in US for decades. It has been a topic in our newspapers couple of years ago when we still looked up to US as better place to live and people would need explanation for why somebody in right mind would want to resign US citizenship in favor of Polish.
I have even heard of a person that had to US citizens as parents but never set foot on US soil, that was hunted by IRS to pay taxes.
It is not like people don't have to pay taxes in other countries, though some have smaller rates. To get better picture you would have to look at where they actually went.
Maybe people no longer want to live in US and it is wealthy that have it easier to actually go through with this?
Or maybe they actually live somewhere else and don't like paying their taxes TWICE. Almost every country in the world (except US) requires taxes based on residency, not citizenship.
For example, being Pole, if I spend more than 180 days in Sweden, I now owe taxes in Sweden but no longer owe them in Poland. That is because Poland recognizes that, while I am Polish citizen, I actually was Swedish resident during that tax year. And have an agreement with Sweden so that it is clear where I have to pay my taxes.
The US doesn't want to play nice and will only provide you with a little bit of credit for the tax you had to pay in another country. But if you earned a lot, you now have to pay it twice.
I actually know 2 or 3 people that work here in Poland that resigned their US citizenship for exactly this reason. Because IRS will hunt you down and demand your taxes even if you don't set foot in US for decades. It has been a topic in our newspapers couple of years ago when we still looked up to US as better place to live and people would need explanation for why somebody in right mind would want to resign US citizenship in favor of Polish.
I have even heard of a person that had to US citizens as parents but never set foot on US soil, that was hunted by IRS to pay taxes.
It is not like people don't have to pay taxes in other countries, though some have smaller rates. To get better picture you would have to look at where they actually went.
> For example, being Pole, if I spend more than 180 days in Sweden, I now owe taxes in Sweden but no longer owe them in Poland. That is because Poland recognizes that, while I am Polish citizen, I actually was Swedish resident during that tax year. And have an agreement with Sweden so that it is clear where I have to pay my taxes.
The US has similar arrangements with many countries, and you are not doubly-taxed. You simply pay taxes at the highest rate of the two (US and <other country>).
Likewise, if you move to the US from a higher-tax country, and the US has a tax treaty with that country, in your first year in the US (assuming you move mid-year), you will owe taxes to both countries, but will only pay the US rate overall. My first year in the US, the US government paid me US$600 because in their eyes, I had paid the UK too much in taxes for the 5 months I had worked there.
The hassle is that you still have to file with the IRS, even if your actual tax liability to the US is zero.
The US has similar arrangements with many countries, and you are not doubly-taxed. You simply pay taxes at the highest rate of the two (US and <other country>).
Likewise, if you move to the US from a higher-tax country, and the US has a tax treaty with that country, in your first year in the US (assuming you move mid-year), you will owe taxes to both countries, but will only pay the US rate overall. My first year in the US, the US government paid me US$600 because in their eyes, I had paid the UK too much in taxes for the 5 months I had worked there.
The hassle is that you still have to file with the IRS, even if your actual tax liability to the US is zero.
> The US has similar arrangements with many countries, and you are not doubly-taxed. You simply pay taxes at the highest rate of the two (US and <other country>).
But do you see how punitive that is to US expats? It means that they never benefit from tax mitigation efforts in their resident country if the US has higher taxes on that. That, tax-wise, they are perpetually worse off than US residents and their local neighbors.
Think about the effect of this on small businesses (which are hardly alone in their troubles). Small businesses owned by US expats are at a perpetual disadvantage relative to local businesses because they can’t operate purely within the local tax environment. If the US introduces some poorly thought out regulation, like the GILTI tax, they are hit completely independently of the local competition through no fault of their own.
Besides, if the resident country decides to mitigate some local issue by lowering taxes, what business is that to the US? It’s criminal that it uses its own citizens to siphon off another country’s wealth.
But do you see how punitive that is to US expats? It means that they never benefit from tax mitigation efforts in their resident country if the US has higher taxes on that. That, tax-wise, they are perpetually worse off than US residents and their local neighbors.
Think about the effect of this on small businesses (which are hardly alone in their troubles). Small businesses owned by US expats are at a perpetual disadvantage relative to local businesses because they can’t operate purely within the local tax environment. If the US introduces some poorly thought out regulation, like the GILTI tax, they are hit completely independently of the local competition through no fault of their own.
Besides, if the resident country decides to mitigate some local issue by lowering taxes, what business is that to the US? It’s criminal that it uses its own citizens to siphon off another country’s wealth.
I certainly see it.
My dispute was only with the term "doubly-taxed", which for countries with a tax treaty is simply false.
Nevertheless, you are correct that as a US citizen, you are destined to pay max (USTax (income), OtherTax (income)). I don't agree with this, but it's not called "double taxation".
My dispute was only with the term "doubly-taxed", which for countries with a tax treaty is simply false.
Nevertheless, you are correct that as a US citizen, you are destined to pay max (USTax (income), OtherTax (income)). I don't agree with this, but it's not called "double taxation".
You are assuming 100% of these people are moving to countries with lower taxes. That's simply not true.
In fact, countries that have high standard of living usually have equal or higher taxes than the states.
Contrary to what you may assume, especially people who have sought an alternative lifestyle abroad value value having a high standard of living, and not going to move to some shithole just because it has lower taxes.
In fact, countries that have high standard of living usually have equal or higher taxes than the states.
Contrary to what you may assume, especially people who have sought an alternative lifestyle abroad value value having a high standard of living, and not going to move to some shithole just because it has lower taxes.
What countries are they moving to? Currently if you save and invest your money you can pass it to your children (or whoever) with a step up in cost basis. So the investments can go on indefinitely from generation to generation essentially without tax. Because technically, you haven't realized any gains yet. In the meantime, you can borrow from banks against these investments (also I believe not taxable, at least not like income tax). These new laws would get rid of the ability to pass on your wealth without a significant (like 50%?) tax because they would recognize death or gifts as a taxable "transaction". Unless you donate it to charity. Which might be why Buffet is leaving all of his money to charities (which are run by his kids...or at least some of them).
I'm honestly still trying to figure this out but that's what I understand so far. Another interesting consequence is that calculating long term investment cost basis's sounds like a f'ing nightmare. Maybe that's why the step up rule exists?
I'm honestly still trying to figure this out but that's what I understand so far. Another interesting consequence is that calculating long term investment cost basis's sounds like a f'ing nightmare. Maybe that's why the step up rule exists?
>The best thing to do is forbid them re-entry into the country nor to hold controlling interest in any company in the US.
This is so wrong at so many levels. Im not from the USA, yet I own Disney stock and visit the USA every year for tourism. Should i be blocked as well?
This is so wrong at so many levels. Im not from the USA, yet I own Disney stock and visit the USA every year for tourism. Should i be blocked as well?
IRS thinks Green Card Holders who are non-citizens and non-residents owes them taxes on income on their country of residence and citizenship.
They're effectively the only country that believes they're entitled to non-citizen and non-resident income, but we're the "selfish lot" for relieving ourselves of a double tax burden to a country we don't reside in? No thanks you can have it back.
They're effectively the only country that believes they're entitled to non-citizen and non-resident income, but we're the "selfish lot" for relieving ourselves of a double tax burden to a country we don't reside in? No thanks you can have it back.
It's funny that citizens of every other rich country on the planet have this free arrangement where we only pay tax where we live. But in your fantasies this behaviour and freedom is so evil we should be blocked from returning home
>The best thing to do is forbid them re-entry into the country nor to hold controlling interest in any company in the US.
That seems unnecessarily vengeful considering that foreigners (that weren't originally US citizens) weren't subject to the same restrictions.
That seems unnecessarily vengeful considering that foreigners (that weren't originally US citizens) weren't subject to the same restrictions.
It's probably pointless to discuss this with someone who insists on generalizing anyone above a certain net worth as being selfish, but -
As it turns out, it's no longer the 80s, and there are increasingly multiple other countries were the super-rich can move their activities, wealth and lifestyle to without missing a beat.
Hanging around financial circles, I've seen a large exodus of people through the pandemic star the process of moving pieces towards places like Dubai and Singapore.
As it turns out, it's no longer the 80s, and there are increasingly multiple other countries were the super-rich can move their activities, wealth and lifestyle to without missing a beat.
Hanging around financial circles, I've seen a large exodus of people through the pandemic star the process of moving pieces towards places like Dubai and Singapore.
the point is that generally there is some expectation of loyalty to the country that allowed you to become super-rich in the first place. In finance specifically many of these people participated in outsourcing a huge chunk of the American economy for short term profit and their own gain and are now abandoning ship
abandoning your country for lower taxes so you can "live your lifestyle without missing a beat" is disgusting to most humans. The wealthy have abandoned any sense of duty to their fellow citizens and are somehow shocked people are angry about the situation
abandoning your country for lower taxes so you can "live your lifestyle without missing a beat" is disgusting to most humans. The wealthy have abandoned any sense of duty to their fellow citizens and are somehow shocked people are angry about the situation
> the country that allowed you to become super-rich in the first place
But it's never enough. taxes already work on a scale such that the rich pay more (% wise), and they still owe more?
Almost every aspect of participating in the economy is taxed, e.g paying business-related taxes - those that participate more therefore pay more of these taxes too.
It seems "what is owed" is never clearly stated so you can always be hit up for more.
But it's never enough. taxes already work on a scale such that the rich pay more (% wise), and they still owe more?
Almost every aspect of participating in the economy is taxed, e.g paying business-related taxes - those that participate more therefore pay more of these taxes too.
It seems "what is owed" is never clearly stated so you can always be hit up for more.
No, "most humans" aren't going to moralize and want to give back to their country in the form of taxes as a thank you when they strike gold.
Being forced to give a large portion of my family's hard earned wealth to a tired, ineffective institution which aims to invest it in initiatives I think will ruin the economy? Why in god's name would I do that if I have the choice not to?
Being forced to give a large portion of my family's hard earned wealth to a tired, ineffective institution which aims to invest it in initiatives I think will ruin the economy? Why in god's name would I do that if I have the choice not to?
The wealthy in America cover the bulk of the tax revenue collected if the IRS stats are to be trusted.
I'd say that's less about the generosity of the wealthy and more about the huge rise in concentration of wealth that we've allowed over the last 50 years: https://www.chartbookofeconomicinequality.com/inequality-by-...
The wealthy pay far less in taxes in proportion to their wealth than everyone else. Long term capital gains is only 10%.
The wealthy are only wealthy because the non-wealthy people who vastly outnumber the wealthy, allow them to keep their capital. I think massive wealth inequality is making a significant number of people rethink this generous position.
The wealthy are only wealthy because the non-wealthy people who vastly outnumber the wealthy, allow them to keep their capital. I think massive wealth inequality is making a significant number of people rethink this generous position.
> Long term capital gains is only 10%
But it has yet to be taxed as income. Even if it doesn't devalue, you can't use it until you dispose of it, incurring additional tax.
> The wealthy are only wealthy because the non-wealthy people who vastly outnumber the wealthy, allow them to keep their capital.
The wealthy can afford better weaponry than you. Are you alive only because they allow you to live?
> rethink this generous position
Do you think you are entitled to something just because you could (forcibly) take it?
But it has yet to be taxed as income. Even if it doesn't devalue, you can't use it until you dispose of it, incurring additional tax.
> The wealthy are only wealthy because the non-wealthy people who vastly outnumber the wealthy, allow them to keep their capital.
The wealthy can afford better weaponry than you. Are you alive only because they allow you to live?
> rethink this generous position
Do you think you are entitled to something just because you could (forcibly) take it?
Forbidding them reentry on what basis that you can legally uphold vis a vi their being a foreign citizen from another country we are friendly with? Controlling interest in any U.S. company... chances are their company is already by accounting principles registered somewhere else internationally, or they might move asset ownership to some sort of family trust, or form shell companies to hold US Stock that you'd never trace.
I think you're underestimating the legal maneuvers these people can afford to find that have got then to where they are.
I think you're underestimating the legal maneuvers these people can afford to find that have got then to where they are.
Forbidding people would only punish your normal ex-pats.
The billionaires can just dock their yachts in international waters.
The billionaires can just dock their yachts in international waters.
> avoid paying for the infrastructure and management of the country
The premise here is dead wrong. The top 1% pay ~40% of taxes; the top 5% pay ~60%. So not only do these people create the wonderful consumer goods that enrich your life; they also provide the roads, police, fire fighters, etc. Show some gratitude!
The premise here is dead wrong. The top 1% pay ~40% of taxes; the top 5% pay ~60%. So not only do these people create the wonderful consumer goods that enrich your life; they also provide the roads, police, fire fighters, etc. Show some gratitude!
> The best thing to do is forbid them re-entry into the country nor to hold controlling interest in any company in the US.
Do we forbid foreigners from holding US stocks, assets, etc?
Who do you think is financing the profligate lifestyle we live, compared to our true earnings?
Do we forbid foreigners from holding US stocks, assets, etc?
Who do you think is financing the profligate lifestyle we live, compared to our true earnings?
Close to the top of the article:
> Between the lines: While the numbers are down this year, that's probably because many U.S. embassies and consulates remain closed for COVID-19, and taking this grave step requires taking an oath in front of a State Department officer.
So it seems these are American passport holders who already live in foreign countries, so contributing to American infrastructure, etc, but not benefiting of those things. Obviously having embassies you can go to for help anywhere around the world is useful, but if these are dual-passport holders they probably have the second embassy, for example any EU embassy would help any EU citizen [1].
But well, 2020 saw the worst of Trump saying "Everything is under control!" while ICUs (and morgues) overfilled, so maybe that's a reason for the renouncements. Or maybe was there some new law which was going to come to effect in 2021?
Anyway, I find "forbidding re-entry" is extreme and tinpot-dictatorship-esque.
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-r...
> Between the lines: While the numbers are down this year, that's probably because many U.S. embassies and consulates remain closed for COVID-19, and taking this grave step requires taking an oath in front of a State Department officer.
So it seems these are American passport holders who already live in foreign countries, so contributing to American infrastructure, etc, but not benefiting of those things. Obviously having embassies you can go to for help anywhere around the world is useful, but if these are dual-passport holders they probably have the second embassy, for example any EU embassy would help any EU citizen [1].
But well, 2020 saw the worst of Trump saying "Everything is under control!" while ICUs (and morgues) overfilled, so maybe that's a reason for the renouncements. Or maybe was there some new law which was going to come to effect in 2021?
Anyway, I find "forbidding re-entry" is extreme and tinpot-dictatorship-esque.
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-r...
They would not be EU citizens. The taxes are even higher. The article is around specifically renouncing American citizenships. Also, dual-citizenship is useless. If you are, say, in Russia, and you have your Russian passport on you, the American consulate won't lift a finger - your ass is wholly Moscow's.
The people in the article aren't the only ones affected.
If I ever move back to Australia, I'll have to file US taxes and other reports such as FBAR for the rest of my life. If you get it wrong, they can and have seized up to 50% of your wealth. Not because it's owed, but just as a penalty.
And many Australian financial institutions won't let me open an account because of the reporting requirements.
This isn't just about the rich avoiding taxes. It's about the US overreaching and creating headaches for lots of people.
If I ever move back to Australia, I'll have to file US taxes and other reports such as FBAR for the rest of my life. If you get it wrong, they can and have seized up to 50% of your wealth. Not because it's owed, but just as a penalty.
And many Australian financial institutions won't let me open an account because of the reporting requirements.
This isn't just about the rich avoiding taxes. It's about the US overreaching and creating headaches for lots of people.
If I am a US citizen with negligible assets and a plan to move abroad and renounce my US citizenship, and I plan to found a software startup, how should I go about it to minimize the taxes I eventually pay to my soon to be former government, whose unjust practices I'm trying to stop funding?
I could potentially wait until my US citizenship is a thing of the past before I even build anything, let alone create a new legal entity. But ideally I would find a way to start this now.
I could potentially wait until my US citizenship is a thing of the past before I even build anything, let alone create a new legal entity. But ideally I would find a way to start this now.
Might be a few days too late… but here’s the strategy I’m using. Start a Dutch BV and hire yourself and move you to the Netherlands. The BV will Sponsor you under the Dutch-American Friendship Treaty. Don’t mention “startup” though, that’s a totally different (and much harder to get) visa.
You can renew a DAFT visa as much as you want, but after 5-7 years, you can get a Dutch passport as long as you stay in the country enough.
Due to tax treaties, you get a 30% tax cut in the NL (30% ruling) for five years, and you only pay the difference on US taxes after paying NL taxes (virtually impossible because NL taxes are generally higher than US taxes).
You can renew a DAFT visa as much as you want, but after 5-7 years, you can get a Dutch passport as long as you stay in the country enough.
Due to tax treaties, you get a 30% tax cut in the NL (30% ruling) for five years, and you only pay the difference on US taxes after paying NL taxes (virtually impossible because NL taxes are generally higher than US taxes).
I've considered it (not wealthy by the definition here) because of the prior four years and lingering weakness in the system of government. There was very nearly a successful putsch this year, and it's widely popular with the party that attempted it. I am patriotic and pay my taxes - I would pay more - but I have explored dual citizenship for the same reason that Germans did in the 1930s.
> Only the U.S. and Eritrea tax people based on citizenship rather than residency. For most countries, if you are a citizen but don’t reside there, you aren’t taxed in that country.
Funny thing is if you are living nomad life you are still required to pay tax somewhere, which I'm not sure makes much sense. My country surely not going to pay my medical expenses abroad, so why should I contribute?
Funny thing is if you are living nomad life you are still required to pay tax somewhere, which I'm not sure makes much sense. My country surely not going to pay my medical expenses abroad, so why should I contribute?
Thousands in a country of hundreds of millions. This is a drop in a drop of a bucket. Wake me up when it breaches %0.01 of the population.
Without getting into the moral debate of taxing US Citizens globally... how could the US government stop this from happening? Surely these ex-citizens hold a lot of assets in the US, and most probably spend a lot of time in the country. Could the gov't effectively banish them or ban them from holding assets in US assets? What would be the side effects of such a law?
> how could the US government stop this from happening?
By taxing based on residency, not citizenship, like pretty much all other countries on Earth.
People have the right to lower their tax liability within the law, they have the right to move, and they have the right to renounce citizenship (if they have another one). We're not going to prevent any of that from happening. The only thing the US can do is to remove the incentive to renounce citizenship if they think that this is a problem.
By taxing based on residency, not citizenship, like pretty much all other countries on Earth.
People have the right to lower their tax liability within the law, they have the right to move, and they have the right to renounce citizenship (if they have another one). We're not going to prevent any of that from happening. The only thing the US can do is to remove the incentive to renounce citizenship if they think that this is a problem.
Do you have a citation where US (federal) law requires one to have a foreign citizenship in order to renounce US citizenship?
Or, would it be possible to renounce US citizenship without foreign citizenship, perhaps while maintaining citizenship in one's state of origin in one of the seven states—Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming—which levy no state income tax, or in one of the two others, New Hampshire and Tennessee, which don't tax earned wages? In other words, could one reside overseas but maintain a tie with a particular state within the USA without any relationship to the federal government?
Or, would it be possible to renounce US citizenship without foreign citizenship, perhaps while maintaining citizenship in one's state of origin in one of the seven states—Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming—which levy no state income tax, or in one of the two others, New Hampshire and Tennessee, which don't tax earned wages? In other words, could one reside overseas but maintain a tie with a particular state within the USA without any relationship to the federal government?
Ah, well according to Google the US are one of the few countries that does not require another citizenship in order to let you renounce citizenship.
So, indeed you could renounce US citizenship without having any other one... But that would make you stateless, without passport, etc. which does not sound like a good idea.
So, indeed you could renounce US citizenship without having any other one... But that would make you stateless, without passport, etc. which does not sound like a good idea.
Wouldn't you not have a passport in that case? So presumably you would never be able to get back to the state you have a tie to, right? Seems like a tenuous circumstance.
There's no reason to stop it. Their assets are still paying taxes.
I'm asking simply as a thought experiment.
And the reason to stop it is obvious-- to procure other taxes from those people. For example, many jurisdictions don't have an inheritance tax, and the US Gov't would likely want that cut upon the (ex?)-citizen's death.
And the reason to stop it is obvious-- to procure other taxes from those people. For example, many jurisdictions don't have an inheritance tax, and the US Gov't would likely want that cut upon the (ex?)-citizen's death.
>how could the US government stop this from happening.
Lots of simple solutions if we look at other countries that restrict emigration. USSR and North Korea had models that worked pretty well. High boarder security, labor camps, family punishment, and asset seizure.
These could all keep people working and generating tax revenue in the US when they want to leave.
On a practical level, I think the idea of coercing people to stay in the USA would be unpopular, especially when contrasted with the current wealth tax on exit.
Lots of simple solutions if we look at other countries that restrict emigration. USSR and North Korea had models that worked pretty well. High boarder security, labor camps, family punishment, and asset seizure.
These could all keep people working and generating tax revenue in the US when they want to leave.
On a practical level, I think the idea of coercing people to stay in the USA would be unpopular, especially when contrasted with the current wealth tax on exit.
They could impose a citizenship "exit tax", if you are worth more than X amount of dollars, I reckon.
I believe the US already has an "exit tax" where you're taxed on unrealized capital gains when you give up citizenship, similar to how you'd be taxed if you realized the gains by selling.
What kind of capital gains, given foreigners can hold US assets.
Perhaps a tax could be introduced for those who renounce their citizenship and which could work somewhat like the estate tax. Meaning it would only affect people who have considerable wealth.
This exists. It’s called an exit tax. Applies if you have assets over $2 million, or you haven’t been meeting your tax obligations over the past five years.
It's really weird how an obviously bad law that's been active for 11 years now and hurt so many people has not been fixed yet.
> For most countries, if you are a citizen but don’t reside there, you aren’t taxed in that country.
Is it true? To my knowledge, if one's home and the resident country have double taxation avoidance agreement, the citizen end up paying the maximum of the tax rate amongst the two.
Is it the case that the US doesn't have DTAA at all, or do US citizens always get taxed twice?
Is it true? To my knowledge, if one's home and the resident country have double taxation avoidance agreement, the citizen end up paying the maximum of the tax rate amongst the two.
Is it the case that the US doesn't have DTAA at all, or do US citizens always get taxed twice?
USA does have DTAA with maybe 60 countries. Those mutual agreements are based on income from personal services. I think a lot of the comments in this thread are drawing conclusions about specific sources of income:
- there’s an exit tax, might be millions $ for the top-tier. You might give your money to family members or a trust before planning to pay it.
- there’s capital gains tax. This means your income is not from personal services and instead from just being wealthy. Looks to me like a lot of the comments here are defending the rights of people with that lifestyle. Those people do not need DTAA.
- reported income from personal services (labor) is what you’re talking about. The bad experiences in this thread are real, but DTAA is meant to make life easier for professors and touring musicians, etc.
- unreported income is indistinguishable from money laundering. The underworld is a very libertarian place, a sore spot for some in this thread.
- there’s an exit tax, might be millions $ for the top-tier. You might give your money to family members or a trust before planning to pay it.
- there’s capital gains tax. This means your income is not from personal services and instead from just being wealthy. Looks to me like a lot of the comments here are defending the rights of people with that lifestyle. Those people do not need DTAA.
- reported income from personal services (labor) is what you’re talking about. The bad experiences in this thread are real, but DTAA is meant to make life easier for professors and touring musicians, etc.
- unreported income is indistinguishable from money laundering. The underworld is a very libertarian place, a sore spot for some in this thread.
This also affects long term US residents (green card). See more at https://www.expatriationattorneys.com/green-card-u-s-exit-ta...
[deleted]
As a permanent resident living in the US I find myself wondering if it thusly makes sense to never take US Citizenship. It seems like I can easily abandon my residency the moment I want to retire and leave the US. Am I missing something ?
It's more complicated than that. If you've had the green card more than (I think) 8 years you will be treated like a citizen should you want to give up the residency. So you have to pay the exit taxes (mentioned somewhere else in this thread).
Permanent residents are also subject to the expatriation tax AFAIK.
What a pack of weasels.
Back in the day, Elvis Presley was asked by his accountant if he wanted to shelter his income. Elvis told him "No. If I get low on money, I'll schedule more concerts. I pay my taxes."
That's one reason why he was The King.
Back in the day, Elvis Presley was asked by his accountant if he wanted to shelter his income. Elvis told him "No. If I get low on money, I'll schedule more concerts. I pay my taxes."
That's one reason why he was The King.
All-in-all, the United States is a great place. But it's an awful look for a country to make it hard to leave. I think shutting the borders to people coming in is bad, but shutting them to people going out is so much worse.
.. and soon local mafia may ransom their families without worrying about American government protecting its elite. It'll be a good day for organized crime. Wealthy people have the most that they can afford to lose.
Of course they are. When the dominant narrative is that America is a racist hellscape, built on oppression and plunder then things like patriotism and civic spirit seem absurd, quaint notions, ripe for ridicule.
This line of argumentation is always so strange to me because it supposes a strange sort of emotional fragility in the rich that I can't quite square with the exceptionalism we allllll know they possess.
You think the dominant narrative is that America is a racist hellscape? No, no; America is the greatest country on the planet. I heard it on the news. Surely the increasingly consolidated media, owned by the emotionally-fragile rich, could address the dominance of that narrative? Failure to come together to address such a horrifying distortion of reality, after all, would be extremely dangerous to our democracy[0].
In seriousness, I think that your conclusion that the rich are leaving because of culture-war issues is unsupported by the assertion that the dominant narrative is that Murica sucks. The dominant narrative is that America is the land of the free, dude. Unpleasant realities like Trump profiting from the Secret Service having to stay at his hotels, or the dynastic nature of Presidential politics, or how the IRS goes after the poor for lack of the funding that hitting the big-time cheats would require, or how three of the most recent dynasties had ties to an infamous pedophile, or how that pedophile "killed himself" while in high-profile protective custody -- it's all unimportant. Propaganda both subtle and gross smooths things over. The Pledge of Allegiance seems very, very strange to many other cultures, especially Western ones.
I think it's far more likely that they're striking out, as their ancestors once did, to seek a better life. If I were in the habit of cluttering my environment with effluent ponds of various negative externalities, I too would probably want to up and move somewhere with more of a pleasant aspect. Especially if I got to keep all the proceeds of my previous exploitations.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZggCipbiHwE
You think the dominant narrative is that America is a racist hellscape? No, no; America is the greatest country on the planet. I heard it on the news. Surely the increasingly consolidated media, owned by the emotionally-fragile rich, could address the dominance of that narrative? Failure to come together to address such a horrifying distortion of reality, after all, would be extremely dangerous to our democracy[0].
In seriousness, I think that your conclusion that the rich are leaving because of culture-war issues is unsupported by the assertion that the dominant narrative is that Murica sucks. The dominant narrative is that America is the land of the free, dude. Unpleasant realities like Trump profiting from the Secret Service having to stay at his hotels, or the dynastic nature of Presidential politics, or how the IRS goes after the poor for lack of the funding that hitting the big-time cheats would require, or how three of the most recent dynasties had ties to an infamous pedophile, or how that pedophile "killed himself" while in high-profile protective custody -- it's all unimportant. Propaganda both subtle and gross smooths things over. The Pledge of Allegiance seems very, very strange to many other cultures, especially Western ones.
I think it's far more likely that they're striking out, as their ancestors once did, to seek a better life. If I were in the habit of cluttering my environment with effluent ponds of various negative externalities, I too would probably want to up and move somewhere with more of a pleasant aspect. Especially if I got to keep all the proceeds of my previous exploitations.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZggCipbiHwE
I think you misunderstand me. I am not saying the rich are leaving because of culture war issues. I am saying that the incessant claims that America is just the worse erodes the social fabric for everyone, including the rich, and one manifestation
of such erosion is that it becomes morally acceptable to cheat the system. After all it is a corrupt, racist, oppressive, hypocriptical imperialistic system, so why pay into it?
The problem with your supposition here is that America's rich have been already acting like "corrupt, racist, oppressive, hypocriptical imperialists" for at least 120 years. United Fruit Company[0], the Business Plot[1], etc. For the rich, it has always been morally acceptable to cheat the system. The 20th century saw the establishment of pensions, then they were raided barely a generation afterwards.
I think what you're complaining about is that the historical propaganda (not to mention historical material abundance for the plebes) which smoothed over the bad stuff doesn't work as well in the modern age. There's cellphone cameras, whistleblowers, shrinkflation, and planned obsolescence these days. What investment and fellow-feeling should the little people feel for The System?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
I think what you're complaining about is that the historical propaganda (not to mention historical material abundance for the plebes) which smoothed over the bad stuff doesn't work as well in the modern age. There's cellphone cameras, whistleblowers, shrinkflation, and planned obsolescence these days. What investment and fellow-feeling should the little people feel for The System?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
Many, if not most, of American's rich are self-made, most obviously in tech, where the amount of wealth accrued to Gen X's and Millennial boggles the mind. Does your indictment extent to those people was well, or is reserved for people whose parents were rich?
You're trying to muddy the waters by bringing up "high" tech salaries, given that we're both tech people. But we don't really make society-shaping decisions by bribing politicians (well, I don't). The sort of people who do, and the sort of people I'm referring to, and the sort of entitled cheating of The System that I object to, is well illustrated by this: https://www.propublica.org/article/secret-irs-files-reveal-h...
Turning a $20 million donation into a $500 million tax break is both enriching oneself and starving everyone else. My "indictment" is a mere recognizance of what's in front of me. What does this look like to you?
Turning a $20 million donation into a $500 million tax break is both enriching oneself and starving everyone else. My "indictment" is a mere recognizance of what's in front of me. What does this look like to you?
[deleted]
[deleted]
That’s not the “dominant narrative”, it’s historical fact. Slavery, segregation and genocide of Native Americans aren’t fabricated stories, they actually happened.
Patriotism is for fools. Civil spirit starts with not rejecting citizenship for tax reasons.
Patriotism is for fools. Civil spirit starts with not rejecting citizenship for tax reasons.
Every border in the world is built upon blood and war, not any different really.
The US had segregation until 1964. It's pretty much done non-stop military adventurism since it's inception. Yes, most countries are unethical and morally repulsive, but the US is at the very top of the heap and it has been for a long time.
Patriotism? What exactly is that word to you? To me it is merey loyalty to mud.
Caring about your society, institutional values, and countrymen.
My life experiences have made me incapable of empathizing with this view. My fellow citizens have never had my back, and I disagree with most everything they hold dear, as they disagree with most everything about me.
I don't hate America or its people, I'm just not that into them.
Patriotic people love to tell others "If you don't love America, leave it". Well, as my patriotic act to those great patriotic Americans .. I left.
I don't hate America or its people, I'm just not that into them.
Patriotic people love to tell others "If you don't love America, leave it". Well, as my patriotic act to those great patriotic Americans .. I left.
Sounds like it was for the best. Are you happy with your new country? Any sense of patriotism there (using my definition)?
Nope. Nada. None. Zilch.
But enjoy singing some bad national anthem and crying while waving a flag or maybe killing someone who disrespects your flag, or whatever it is the patriotic kids do today.
We really have no country or stable home right now. Once we get to Spain we will love being there, but we will still hold no sense of patriotism.
I'm not willing to fight, murder, or die for a nation. Some people are wired that way, violent ideation of being a hero, dying for god and country or whatever, but it ain't me.
But enjoy singing some bad national anthem and crying while waving a flag or maybe killing someone who disrespects your flag, or whatever it is the patriotic kids do today.
We really have no country or stable home right now. Once we get to Spain we will love being there, but we will still hold no sense of patriotism.
I'm not willing to fight, murder, or die for a nation. Some people are wired that way, violent ideation of being a hero, dying for god and country or whatever, but it ain't me.
That level of detachment is only affordable to you because of the generations of people that fought, murdered and died for the nations on which you now can so comfortably live. Perhaps you think that work is done. Maybe you are right, at this moment, but if history is any guide, it could all change in an instant and you could need people who are willing to fight for your way of live.
US salaries are much more than salaries in, say Europe/UK (for software engineers). Is it worth maintaining US citizenship in order to make it easier to work remotely for US companies from outside the US?
So what like 7k people? 2 Million is not even a big figure. Sounds like the site is making a mountain out a pin prick.
Also if you notice the number spiked in 2016, meaning that it was more to do with Trump than anything else.
Also if you notice the number spiked in 2016, meaning that it was more to do with Trump than anything else.
I read, some German citizens travel all the time without paying taxes, because of some loop hole that only requires you to pay income tax when you stay longer than three months in a country.
Pretty cool that the guys the US government bends over to service and on whose behalf the army fights to open new markets basically see themselves as above the other Americans.
"... the protections and privileges that U.S. citizenship affords ..."
What are these protections and privileges, specifically, that are not afforded by any other nation?
What are these protections and privileges, specifically, that are not afforded by any other nation?
I don't see why this is a problem though.
For almost any other country, if a wealth person moves abroad, they no longer pay tax in their original country.
So this just levels the field.
For almost any other country, if a wealth person moves abroad, they no longer pay tax in their original country.
So this just levels the field.
Worth noting that this story gets run every year around this time (because that's when the annual #s are released) and is always about last year.
I've heard that technically renouncing us citizenship to dodge taxes is illegal. But as with most things, that's only if you get caught.
> Eric Schmidt, the former Alphabet CEO, has applied to become a citizen of Cyprus.
Is he going to pay an exit tax, or has he found a way around this too?
Is he going to pay an exit tax, or has he found a way around this too?
International tax reporting is a real burden and I am not surprised they choose to go down that route if it makes life easier for them.
[deleted]
Remember when they declared independence and chucked all that tea off the boat because they were paying taxes to England? How ironic.
Terrible title! "Wealthy people" - all of them? Two of them? Half of them? Most of them?
It's funny how the IRS publishes a "shame list" of people who renounced.
"The big picture: Only the U.S. and Eritrea tax people based on citizenship rather than residency. For most countries, if you are a citizen but don’t reside there, you aren’t taxed in that country."
Sounds like we need to start taxing based on residency.
Sounds like we need to start taxing based on residency.
So long and thanks for all the fish.
Not surprised. Rich people have disproportionally many crooks who have both desire and capabilities to avoid paying taxes.
someone calls this "voting with your feet”.
you do not like it, and you just leave.
If I were financially capable of doing so, watching the rising tide of idiocy and illiberalism in America, I'd renounce my citizenship too. Not sure why Axios so unquestionably assumes the only reason is taxes imposed by the Biden Administration rather than a feeling of "why am I supporting this garbage society from the other side of the world?"
It's been going downhill since The Tea Party.
It's been going downhill since The Tea Party.
How the US treats expats is really bad.
No wonder that many renounce citizenship.
No wonder that many renounce citizenship.
makes sense, they dont need to be american to buy american politicians or influence americas political tax system. why wouldnt they want to live where they dont shit.
Good riddance. "Wealthy" people contribute capital. The government can print more money to replace them at the expense of the same "wealthy" people who most likely got "wealthy" from exploitative practices opposed to conscious capitalism.
By most western standards my family teeters on the line between middle and upper middle clas.
We sold all of our US property last year; and now we are shopping for 4-6 unit buildings within 100km of Barcelona to get our Golden Visas. Our goal is to get citizenship and access to the EU then renouncing my US citizenship.
It isnt about money, I am juwt ashamed to have an American passport and know my tax dollars are being spent on war and murder in the name of christ and oil profits.
I was born an American and would prefer not to die that way.
We sold all of our US property last year; and now we are shopping for 4-6 unit buildings within 100km of Barcelona to get our Golden Visas. Our goal is to get citizenship and access to the EU then renouncing my US citizenship.
It isnt about money, I am juwt ashamed to have an American passport and know my tax dollars are being spent on war and murder in the name of christ and oil profits.
I was born an American and would prefer not to die that way.
>By most western standards my family teeters on the line between middle and upper middle clas. (...) we are shopping for 4-6 unit buildings within 100km of Barcelona
I'm not sure this is what upper middle, much less middle, class is.
A family that can pay several millions for houses abroad just to get a visa to change citizenship is way above middle class, or even upper middle class for that matter.
Pew Research defines middle class: $53,413 - $106,827 year, and upper-middle class: $106,827 - $373,894.
I'm not sure this is what upper middle, much less middle, class is.
A family that can pay several millions for houses abroad just to get a visa to change citizenship is way above middle class, or even upper middle class for that matter.
Pew Research defines middle class: $53,413 - $106,827 year, and upper-middle class: $106,827 - $373,894.
The Spanish golden visa will require a €550k housing investment, then the normal amount of accrued in-country time for citizenship.
Maybe we’re sort of upper midde-class then. We gross about $200k consulting. Not rich, not poor.
We live in the developing world now so here we are definitely upper middle class/rich, and do not have millions in assets.
Maybe we’re sort of upper midde-class then. We gross about $200k consulting. Not rich, not poor.
We live in the developing world now so here we are definitely upper middle class/rich, and do not have millions in assets.
You are upper class. Yes you're not rich, but you're not middle class.
The middle class American dream is a house in the suburbs with a white picket fence, 2 cars, and a dog.
You're talking about buying a half million dollar house in Spain because of a moral concern about global geopolitics. You're not middle class.
The middle class American dream is a house in the suburbs with a white picket fence, 2 cars, and a dog.
You're talking about buying a half million dollar house in Spain because of a moral concern about global geopolitics. You're not middle class.
The amount of the US where you can buy a detached single family home with a white picket fence and 2 car garage for significantly under half a million dollars is probably not as much of a majority as you seem to think.
Not everywhere is the bay area, where you'll struggle to find this for under $1.5M. But $500k is not that much for a house these days in a lot of the markets where huge percentages of the population live (from the tri-state area, to Boston, to Seattle, LA, Austin, etc.) and lots of middle class people live in houses valued at more than this.
Not everywhere is the bay area, where you'll struggle to find this for under $1.5M. But $500k is not that much for a house these days in a lot of the markets where huge percentages of the population live (from the tri-state area, to Boston, to Seattle, LA, Austin, etc.) and lots of middle class people live in houses valued at more than this.
Rich people love to say they're "middle class" or "comfortable"
To be fair to the poster, they said that they sold their US propert(ies|y) which if they are older Americans probably releases an amount of capital that substantially covers the cost of the building they may acquire in Spain.
But yeah, when the median US household income is about $68k, early $200k a year puts you far outside the middle class, even if it doesn't feel that way. [ yes, cost of living in NYC or SF has some impact on this, but not much, given the median household income in those cities not actually being much above the national figure ]
But yeah, when the median US household income is about $68k, early $200k a year puts you far outside the middle class, even if it doesn't feel that way. [ yes, cost of living in NYC or SF has some impact on this, but not much, given the median household income in those cities not actually being much above the national figure ]
Just a nit, but the San Francisco median household income is around $112k [1] for the same year as the $68k you mentioned [2]. I think 50% more counts as “much above the national figure”.
[1] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/sanfranciscocit...
[2] https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-27...
[1] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/sanfranciscocit...
[2] https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-27...
Sure by these measures I'm rich, but I don't feel that way. Our current income isn't really indicative of the whole picture. Since I was diagnosed as Bi-Polar 20 years ago, I have averaged 2 months of unemployment per year, and just spent 13 months without income due to my inability to cope with the stress of the world.
Today I'm rich. Tomorrow I could be living in a van for 6 months like I did after the 2001 bubble burst.
Today I'm rich. Tomorrow I could be living in a van for 6 months like I did after the 2001 bubble burst.
I think it's helpful to consider that just because you are upper class does not necessarily imply that you are rich.
I know plenty of people with upper class hobbies. I couldn't say for sure if they are rich, but they certainly don't live a lifestyle that I was ever familiar with growing up.
Even taking a year off to de-stress... Someone without financial means couldn't make those choices.
And I've known bipolar people too. They worked when they could, and went on disability when they couldn't. They were never rich. Even when they worked, they were always struggling.
I'd never met anyone taking about buying a house in the Spanish hills until becoming a techie.
I know plenty of people with upper class hobbies. I couldn't say for sure if they are rich, but they certainly don't live a lifestyle that I was ever familiar with growing up.
Even taking a year off to de-stress... Someone without financial means couldn't make those choices.
And I've known bipolar people too. They worked when they could, and went on disability when they couldn't. They were never rich. Even when they worked, they were always struggling.
I'd never met anyone taking about buying a house in the Spanish hills until becoming a techie.
> I'd never met anyone taking about buying a house in the Spanish hills until becoming a techie.
I'm still not sure that's the differentiating factor here. OP made clear their moral objections, and sketched out part of a picture in which what makes this possible is not so much "typical tech money", but possibly "having owned a home in the US for long enough".
I have extremely non-tech but upper-middle class friends who in the past have discussed buying entire villages in Spain and Italy (they can be had for as little as $2-300k on the low end. These are not people who ever made "a lot of money", but they have owned homes for long enough that if they sold their house, they'd have capital to put into such a move.
I'm still not sure that's the differentiating factor here. OP made clear their moral objections, and sketched out part of a picture in which what makes this possible is not so much "typical tech money", but possibly "having owned a home in the US for long enough".
I have extremely non-tech but upper-middle class friends who in the past have discussed buying entire villages in Spain and Italy (they can be had for as little as $2-300k on the low end. These are not people who ever made "a lot of money", but they have owned homes for long enough that if they sold their house, they'd have capital to put into such a move.
Spanish tax and legal system is a nightmare. Have you looked at Portugal?
Yes, but my wife has spent the past four years learning Spanish and every time I suggest Portugal she gets a murderous look in her eyes.
My preference is actually Denmark, but it is an order of magnitude more difficult to move there, and my wife hates the language :(
My preference is actually Denmark, but it is an order of magnitude more difficult to move there, and my wife hates the language :(
Look where the rich Spanish Twitch streamers are migrating: Andorra.
Portuguese is not that different from spanish.
This argument also gets me icy cold stares of death.
It also reminds me of how mind-blowing it is that a country whose land-area is 1/5 of California managed to conquer almost 1/2 of South America!
It also reminds me of how mind-blowing it is that a country whose land-area is 1/5 of California managed to conquer almost 1/2 of South America!
I mean, I’m a native Spanish speaker and probably after a year I would be able to pick portuguese.
She just gave you an icy look of doom.
Don’t they have no capital gains tax?
Please don't take this personnaly as I'm not targeting you specifically with my comment: but I don't know how I feel about wealthy foreigners coming to a place, buy property and extract rent from locals, who may not even be able to afford ownership in the first place.
> Please don't take this personnaly as I'm not targeting you specifically with my comment: but I don't know how I feel about wealthy foreigners coming to a place, buy property and extract rent from locals, who may not even be able to afford ownership in the first place.
Weird statement. Don't worry, I wouldn't take your uncertainty about your own feelings personally.
However, I do understand you, and this is something we've struggled with. My wife is a Turk, and at first when we realized "hey, if we sell my house in Mendocino, we can live like princes in Istanbul, or kings on the Aegean", and once that novelty wore off, we decided that we weren't those people.
The argument itself can apply to anywhere. In San Francisco, I spent 10 years living in illegal punk warehouses where I was not a gentrifier, but then I spent 10 years living in Oakland, where I was a gentrifier, even though I'm from California.
Where does the line get drawn? Is it OK to have the $$ to buy a nicer place anywhere in my own country? What about my home state?
We still struggle with this question a lot.
Weird statement. Don't worry, I wouldn't take your uncertainty about your own feelings personally.
However, I do understand you, and this is something we've struggled with. My wife is a Turk, and at first when we realized "hey, if we sell my house in Mendocino, we can live like princes in Istanbul, or kings on the Aegean", and once that novelty wore off, we decided that we weren't those people.
The argument itself can apply to anywhere. In San Francisco, I spent 10 years living in illegal punk warehouses where I was not a gentrifier, but then I spent 10 years living in Oakland, where I was a gentrifier, even though I'm from California.
Where does the line get drawn? Is it OK to have the $$ to buy a nicer place anywhere in my own country? What about my home state?
We still struggle with this question a lot.
I guess the line could be at: I made money in the US and benefited from being a US citizen, but now I pack my things and go live elsewhere so I can benefit from the wealth differential in that country and extract rent from people there.
Hmm. So it is OK for me to say make all of my money in San Francisco then go buy property in much poorer Detroit?
Now what if about 1/3 of that income came from my wife who is from a poorer country than Spain?
Now what if about 1/3 of that income came from my wife who is from a poorer country than Spain?
I guess if a bunch of wealthy people came to Detroit and bought properties and extracted rent from much poorer citizens with less upward mobility and nearly no chance to own a property of them own, that would be the same problem.
You’ve reminded me of that xray spex song, “I live off you”.
If you’re doing consulting. Check out the DAFT visa for the NL. Death stares or not, spend 5 years, get a permanent resident status and move to Spain.
Greece + Italy golden visas also worth taking a look at.
Yes! Also, not tied to golden visas, but in Italy we have this going on: https://1eurohouses.com/ . It is legit and not the classic Italian scam (it's sanctioned by the government).
I wish! Greece was my secone choice (I used to study Lyra in Crete, and Rembetiko Bouzouki (Rembetiko style) in Thessaloniki and Athens.
We almost bought a flat in the Exarchia neighborhood of Athens! Politically/Energetically It’s what Berkeley was like in the early/mid-90s.
The day Trump was elected we were in Barcelona, and decided never to go back to the USA, flipped a coin between Spain and Greece. I always lose coin flips!
We almost bought a flat in the Exarchia neighborhood of Athens! Politically/Energetically It’s what Berkeley was like in the early/mid-90s.
The day Trump was elected we were in Barcelona, and decided never to go back to the USA, flipped a coin between Spain and Greece. I always lose coin flips!
>It isnt about money, I am juwt ashamed to have an American passport and know my tax dollars are being spent on war and murder in the name of christ and oil profits.
You know Bush isn't president anymore, right? That hasn't been a a popular (and I would say erroneous, even when it was popular) talking point for more than a decade.
I do find it interesting that expatriation trends seem to pivot in years with presidential elections, according to that chart.
You know Bush isn't president anymore, right? That hasn't been a a popular (and I would say erroneous, even when it was popular) talking point for more than a decade.
I do find it interesting that expatriation trends seem to pivot in years with presidential elections, according to that chart.
> You know Bush isn't president anymore, right? That hasn't been a a popular (and I would say erroneous, even when it was popular) talking point for more than a decade.
The US performed military operations in eight different countries just during the Obama administration, some of the conflicts where not inherited, like the war in Syria and Yemen.
Those wars were payed by the US citizens regardless of whether they agreed with the war or not.
The US performed military operations in eight different countries just during the Obama administration, some of the conflicts where not inherited, like the war in Syria and Yemen.
Those wars were payed by the US citizens regardless of whether they agreed with the war or not.
Obama invaded Syria "in the name of Christ and oil profits"? That justification was a myth, even when the Trotskyites-cum-Conservatives asserted it as truth 15 years ago.
Creating a belt of failed states in Central Asia has been a long-standing policy, if Wesley Clark is to be believed. I can only speculate what the real goals are, but "because Jesus" or "because Bush is dumb" was always fodder for the low-info crowd who watched the Daily Show.
Creating a belt of failed states in Central Asia has been a long-standing policy, if Wesley Clark is to be believed. I can only speculate what the real goals are, but "because Jesus" or "because Bush is dumb" was always fodder for the low-info crowd who watched the Daily Show.
> Obama invaded Syria "in the name of Christ and oil profits"? That justification was a myth, even when the Trotskyites-cum-Conservatives asserted it as truth 15 years ago.
Citation needed.
Citation needed.
Yes Bush isn't president, but the failures and hatreds of the entire Bush family are still incredibly relevant today. If you don't believe that, look at the 10s of thousands of Afghans currently walking through Iran and Turkey to find refuge in Europe).
When you're the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, your decisions outlast your position.
When you're the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, your decisions outlast your position.
I think the refugees are motivated much more by the financial incentives those governments provide. They usually pass through multiple safe countries to get to places like Germany. A modernized Plantation of Ulster has been the policy of every Western government since the 60s.
War and, I guess, the weather, are convenient narratives for these highly unpopular policies.
War and, I guess, the weather, are convenient narratives for these highly unpopular policies.
I’m guessing you have never volunteered at a refugee camp?
Would you like to? I ask in all seriousness. The UN has several programs which are basically refugee tourism.
Like missionary work but without forcing them to get baptized for their supper.
I did it in Turkey 6 years ago. Imagine 5 miles of tents in any direction. Most people who were there then are still there now.
Would you like to? I ask in all seriousness. The UN has several programs which are basically refugee tourism.
Like missionary work but without forcing them to get baptized for their supper.
I did it in Turkey 6 years ago. Imagine 5 miles of tents in any direction. Most people who were there then are still there now.
I just realized, I never mentioned Bush, you did. See, I didn't even have to mention Bush, just his legacy, and you instantly knew what I was referencing.
Spain is a NATO country involved in many American wars in the past 30 years.
If you oppose US wars and hegemony you should have followed Edward Snowden and moved to a country that actually oppose American influence in the world.
If you oppose US wars and hegemony you should have followed Edward Snowden and moved to a country that actually oppose American influence in the world.
Re: Nato, fair point. There is still a difference between being bullied into submission to American hegemony and being part of the us empire.
I really, really detest cold weather and drunk people, both of which Russia has in abundance. Russia and China are just as offensive to my own moral compass as the USA.
Once we attain citizenship I’m going to try to convince my family to move to Esbjerg, at least for a few years.
I really, really detest cold weather and drunk people, both of which Russia has in abundance. Russia and China are just as offensive to my own moral compass as the USA.
Once we attain citizenship I’m going to try to convince my family to move to Esbjerg, at least for a few years.
The city on the west coast of Denmark? Is that a typo?
Yes, I love it there. My two closest friends moved there to study marine archaeology and within 3 years another 7 had moved there. We were married in Fanø. I’m old, I like the quiet.
Ideally we would spend our winters somewhere warm and the rest of the time in Denmark.
Ideally we would spend our winters somewhere warm and the rest of the time in Denmark.
It's certainly nice in the summer. Long but not too long sunlight, warm but not oppressive. I guess if you just spend summers there it wouldn't be hard to arrange.
Summers really are lovely there. Now that I'm finally vaccinated I'm hoping to go spend 3-4 weeks hopping back and forth between Fano/Esbjerg and Copenhagen. My treat to myself after over a year of Covid-induced unemployment now that I'm vaccinated and working again.
>Spain is a NATO country involved in many American wars in the past 30 years
Which doesn't mean much. NATO is not some alliance, it's the US calling the shots and others doing as told, or else (insert diplomatic, economic, etc. pressure).
Which doesn't mean much. NATO is not some alliance, it's the US calling the shots and others doing as told, or else (insert diplomatic, economic, etc. pressure).
This is correct, Spain supported the wars in Irak and Afghanistan, both with hundreds of thousands of casualties, most of them civilians.
It's an improvement over paying taxes in US but still a dubious moral choice if you claim concerns over your taxes being spent on wars.
Congratulations, I would do the same but I do not have the means to do so.
Stop the cap
The irony is I've seen so many eastern Europeans who gain American citizenship and then continue to not pay taxes on any of their income since it's all off the books to the IRS. This is especially common with the semi rich (5-20 million net worth).
Its really a great system we have here --- get insanely wealthy off the backs of Americans who pay tons more for basic services and then when it's time to pay back run off and keep your change. No wonder America is doing so well.
Most people would, if they could, avoid taxes legally to the maximum of their ability.
You US folks have created this monstrosity yourselves, too. You let lobbyists (who work for the companies that the richest own) influence politicians, you allow companies to have personhood and other such nonsense.
Even the politicians you get to vote on are placed there by said lobbyists and thus the companies that pay for them.
Institutionalised, legal, and widely stimulated and motivated corruption is what causes all of this to happen. The rich make the rules, you not liking it can't be fixed because the rich decide what "fixes" are available for you to vote on.
You US folks have created this monstrosity yourselves, too. You let lobbyists (who work for the companies that the richest own) influence politicians, you allow companies to have personhood and other such nonsense.
Even the politicians you get to vote on are placed there by said lobbyists and thus the companies that pay for them.
Institutionalised, legal, and widely stimulated and motivated corruption is what causes all of this to happen. The rich make the rules, you not liking it can't be fixed because the rich decide what "fixes" are available for you to vote on.
> get insanely wealthy off the backs of Americans
I find it a bit startling to see this sentiment on HN, a site that used to be mostly full of people building startups, attempting to get wealthy by building something useful that people are happy to pay for.
I find it a bit startling to see this sentiment on HN, a site that used to be mostly full of people building startups, attempting to get wealthy by building something useful that people are happy to pay for.
A couple of days ago, I learned about an audio processing plugin that apparently (I haven't verified it yet) earned its creator US$1M in 4 months. This is a little blob of code that you load into your DAW and it makes or changes the sounds, and you tweak knobs till it's doing what you want.
If you don't see the difference between that and, say, Amazon, then I don't know what to say.
The fact that you can trace a line between a scrappy startup in a converted garage somewhere and a behemoth doesn't mean that they are both the same thing.
If you don't see the difference between that and, say, Amazon, then I don't know what to say.
The fact that you can trace a line between a scrappy startup in a converted garage somewhere and a behemoth doesn't mean that they are both the same thing.
[deleted]
“Off the back” sounds like the wealthy took advantage of folks when, in fact, they entered voluntary contracts in a win-win scenario. Creating a company is not exploitative but rather collaborative and mutually beneficial (with workers).
I feel like you'd have to give some evidence for the claims you are making (voluntary, win-win, creating a company being collaborative...) as long as the US doesn't have free health care,free housing and/or some form of UBI. "Take job where you have to pee in bottles or live in squalor" doesn't seem that voluntary to me
The onus is on the person making the claim to provide the evidence. Forming a company (that doesn't work in immoral areas) is a perfectly ethical and legal way of making money.
UBI is not the only solution. Islamic countries have for over 1400 years had the Zakat system, which provides for the poor and needy.
UBI is not the only solution. Islamic countries have for over 1400 years had the Zakat system, which provides for the poor and needy.
Yeah and I asked OP to provide evidence for their claims. Forming a company is not the same as making money of your workers, and just because it's allowed under the current rules doesn't mean it's ethical. Qnd regarding zakat, I know too little about it, but I'm wary of any solution which boils down to "charity" because that makes the receivers dependent on keeping their benefactors happy.
Wealth inequality is proof of exploitation. Look at CEO to worker pay. The capitalists have the system rigged.
There are many places in the United States that have free healthcare, free or reduced price housing, and assistance payments for the poor and sick or injured. These things are paid for with public money through government programs.
Personally I think everyone deserves a certain level of dignity, especially when they're going through hard times. But I've also seen plenty of examples of people who "work the system", which makes it harder to get funding for social welfare programs.
Personally I think everyone deserves a certain level of dignity, especially when they're going through hard times. But I've also seen plenty of examples of people who "work the system", which makes it harder to get funding for social welfare programs.
Where are those places and why aren't people making use of them? I think at least one presidential candidate ran on a healthcare for all platform, so it seems like I'm not the only one who doesn't know this.
And it always strikes me as weird how willing people are to waste money and create inefficient systems only to keep some freeloaders from enjoying their life but balk at hunting down rich people for tax evasion, imposing proportional fines for offenses like they do in Finland or closing tax loop holes. I mean I think I understand why but I find it weird.
And it always strikes me as weird how willing people are to waste money and create inefficient systems only to keep some freeloaders from enjoying their life but balk at hunting down rich people for tax evasion, imposing proportional fines for offenses like they do in Finland or closing tax loop holes. I mean I think I understand why but I find it weird.
Consider two scenarios:
a) Undeveloped land is freely available, and anyone who wants to can go and cultivate it independently from anyone else, making a life entirely for themselves.
b) All land is already owned, and making a living must be achieved by exchanging (typically labour) with others.
Do you believe that people starting without capital in scenario b) will enter into contracts as freely as those starting without capital in scenario a)?
a) Undeveloped land is freely available, and anyone who wants to can go and cultivate it independently from anyone else, making a life entirely for themselves.
b) All land is already owned, and making a living must be achieved by exchanging (typically labour) with others.
Do you believe that people starting without capital in scenario b) will enter into contracts as freely as those starting without capital in scenario a)?
Furthermore:
a) 100% of the world population can relocate globally without any need for visa so they can access the global job market and pick the best location
b) 1% of the world population has access to enough education to become highly skilled and be able to relocate legally. Everybody else has limited choice.
Another example:
a) Everybody has access to UBI and can freely choose to work or study or do volunteering, art etc
b) Unemployed people go hungry, homeless, get sick, get imprisoned
a) 100% of the world population can relocate globally without any need for visa so they can access the global job market and pick the best location
b) 1% of the world population has access to enough education to become highly skilled and be able to relocate legally. Everybody else has limited choice.
Another example:
a) Everybody has access to UBI and can freely choose to work or study or do volunteering, art etc
b) Unemployed people go hungry, homeless, get sick, get imprisoned
Wage theft is the #1 fraud[0] in the US. So while the voluntary contract can be a win-win for a quite a few Americans it is still exploitative.
[0] https://www.epi.org/publication/employers-steal-billions-fro...
[0] https://www.epi.org/publication/employers-steal-billions-fro...
While true and something that needs fixing immediately, this is uncommon and therefore, cannot be used to describe the relationship as "exploitative".
If you read the link, you'd learn that in the 10 most populous US states, 2.4 million minimum wage workers are victims of wage theft annually. This loss averages $3,300 per (full time, year round) worker per year, and just under $8 billion in total per year.
And that's only minimum wage workers, in a subset of the US.
Was there a particular reason you were under the impression that wage theft was uncommon?
And that's only minimum wage workers, in a subset of the US.
Was there a particular reason you were under the impression that wage theft was uncommon?
This is a fantasy. Voluntary contracts imply that workers have the option of not working for starvation wages, which in many cases is simply not true. If your options are to work a dead-end minwage job or, well, die on the street, is it really a voluntary contract that you're entering? I would say not.
There is only 1 company you can work for, and no way to work independently or start a company? Seems strange to me.
If all the companies that are willing to hire you equally treat you like crap, you aren't really given much choice. In terms of entrepreneurship, it carries a ton of risk. People living paycheck-to-paycheck typically aren't able to carry such a risk with no safety net (family, etc.).
Price is set by supply and demand, not by either seller or buyer.
In a market with multiple suppliers and buyers, the price will sort itself out.
That you don't like that price has nothing to do with either side being "evil".
In a market with multiple suppliers and buyers, the price will sort itself out.
That you don't like that price has nothing to do with either side being "evil".
Of course! You can choose:
- Not to work
- Move to a city/state with better opportunities
- Take classes to specialize
- Work hard and get promoted
- Start your business
Aren't these valid options? No "cigar smoking fat cat" force workers to sign the contract under duress.
Aren't these valid options? No "cigar smoking fat cat" force workers to sign the contract under duress.
For many people these are not valid options, no. If you grew up in a low-income household and entered a low-wage job, the likelihood of having sufficient savings to choose not to work, take time off to improve your skills, or move is very low.
How do you have the money to move, take classes, or start a business (business licenses cost $$$) if you are choosing between abusive/dead-end work and homelessness?
> Creating a company is not exploitative but rather collaborative and mutually beneficial (with workers).
If it's collaborative can we vote a new CEO?
If it's collaborative can we vote a new CEO?
Yes, you go to work for a different company that has the CEO you want. Vote with your feet.
But wait, I thought building the company was collaborative? If I collaborated in building the company I work for, why would I want to leave it just to work for a different CEO? If all the workers agree that we need a different CEO, why can't we vote for it? After all, it's supposed to be a collaboration ....
It is collaborative.
Collaboration doesn't mean forcing others to work with you.
Instead, collaborative is about voluntary choice.
If you want to work somewhere else, under different rules, that would be your choice. Forcing others to do what you want isn't collaboration.
> why can't we vote for it
Co-ops exist. If that is what you prefer then go work for a co-op.
Collaboration doesn't mean forcing others to work with you.
Instead, collaborative is about voluntary choice.
If you want to work somewhere else, under different rules, that would be your choice. Forcing others to do what you want isn't collaboration.
> why can't we vote for it
Co-ops exist. If that is what you prefer then go work for a co-op.
It isn't voluntary when its the only game in town. My personal experience tells me the nature of work in the US is exploitative. Of course, experiences will vary, but I've never felt alone in this; on the contrary, in the Midwest "Living the Dream" is essentially shorthand for "I hate my job and everything about it". We're all living the dream, and boy does it suck.
Sure except one side gets a much larger benefit and the other side must enter into this style of contract with _someone_, or starve to death (in the typical case). Just to sidestep the debate over differing dictionary definitions of exploitation (to show my hand a bit though, I prefer the ones that are useful in describing how things have become the way they are, rather than the libertarian ones).
so the current distribution of wealth in america is ok and not anyones fault?
[deleted]
Not if the wealthy campaigned to keep the minimum wage below a living wage for the sake of a higher profit, while also subsidizing the welfare system so the taxpayers pick up the bill instead of the company owners.
Creating a company _should_ be collaborative, but our current capitalist system has actually become more exploitative.
Creating a company _should_ be collaborative, but our current capitalist system has actually become more exploitative.
That is a very naïve way to look at it. It is capitalism, and capitalism is brutal. So even if your view applies to some cases, it certainly does not to all.
Take Jeff Bezos' commentary after his ride into space for example:
> I want to thank every Amazon employee and every Amazon customer because you guys paid for all this. So, to every Amazon customer out there and every Amazon employee thank you from the bottom of my heart.
https://twitter.com/EoinHiggins_/status/1417515577275453440
I get it that we, the consumers paid for this trip. But his employees? What do they have to do with this? Isn't it supposed to be a "collaborative and mutually beneficial" relationship, which would imply that Bezos is not making money from his employees, but exclusively through them, and paying them what they deserve? Yet he claims that they paid for it, which implies that he is not paying them what they deserve, since it is the customer who is supposed to pay his salary, not the exploitation of his employees.
Take Jeff Bezos' commentary after his ride into space for example:
> I want to thank every Amazon employee and every Amazon customer because you guys paid for all this. So, to every Amazon customer out there and every Amazon employee thank you from the bottom of my heart.
https://twitter.com/EoinHiggins_/status/1417515577275453440
I get it that we, the consumers paid for this trip. But his employees? What do they have to do with this? Isn't it supposed to be a "collaborative and mutually beneficial" relationship, which would imply that Bezos is not making money from his employees, but exclusively through them, and paying them what they deserve? Yet he claims that they paid for it, which implies that he is not paying them what they deserve, since it is the customer who is supposed to pay his salary, not the exploitation of his employees.
It's simpler and more emotionally appealing to explain things from an exploitative marxist point of view.
If I had the means to do so, I would do it just to avoid the politics of the US.
Better cuisine is a big driver for me too - hello Italy or France.
Better cuisine is a big driver for me too - hello Italy or France.
not just America, the 0.01% around the world are all learning this lesson...
so where are they all going?
UAE for effectively zero taxes.
New Zealand as it is rumoured although i don't believe it - for someone not rich enough to own a private jet where you can properly sleep, it is TOO far away from... just about anywhere.
Singapore. Some of the Southern and Eastern Europe for those not rich enough.
New Zealand as it is rumoured although i don't believe it - for someone not rich enough to own a private jet where you can properly sleep, it is TOO far away from... just about anywhere.
Singapore. Some of the Southern and Eastern Europe for those not rich enough.
New Zealand it seems. An island country of 5 million with some of the most expensive real estate and highest suicide rates of the developed world.
Where did you get that statistic? According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r..., the USA's suicide rate is ~40% higher than NZ's.
> highest suicide rates of the developed world.
If I am not mistaken most of those suicides are among the Maori people not the white people of NZ.
If I am not mistaken most of those suicides are among the Maori people not the white people of NZ.
Some to Singapore https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielmitchell/2012/05/11/faceb...
The UAE sees a lot of wealthy expats from various countries move in.
According to the Bible, nowhere good.
What biblical reference are you alluding to? I'm not sure how its relevant to the question of where the rich who leave the USA go?
It's all terribly off-topic, but presumably they are talking about Matthew 19:24, which says (ymmv based on your exact translation):
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
Thanks. Yes, off-topic. Particularly considering that according to Genesis 13:2, Abraham (key for Paul's argument in Romans 4 for justification by faith) was "very rich in gold, silver, and cattle", and that in 1 Timothy 6, Paul warns Timothy not against riches per se, but against " the love of money".
Biblically speaking, its not whether one is rich or not, but whether one loves (or worships) riches and the associated power, or whether one uses his or her riches to serve God and love one's neighbor. Thus Paul wrote of learning to be content in plenty or in want, and James warns of not showing favoritism to the rich (echoing perhaps the Old Testament command to not pervert justice in favor of the poor or of the rich).
Trying to tie this thread back into the topic.... I guess it was good that when Abram emigrated from Ur in his home country, the Chaldeans Revenue Service didn't have the steep exit tax that the US imposes on rich emigrants.
Biblically speaking, its not whether one is rich or not, but whether one loves (or worships) riches and the associated power, or whether one uses his or her riches to serve God and love one's neighbor. Thus Paul wrote of learning to be content in plenty or in want, and James warns of not showing favoritism to the rich (echoing perhaps the Old Testament command to not pervert justice in favor of the poor or of the rich).
Trying to tie this thread back into the topic.... I guess it was good that when Abram emigrated from Ur in his home country, the Chaldeans Revenue Service didn't have the steep exit tax that the US imposes on rich emigrants.
Seems like the top of the Catholic Church will not go to heaven then ;)
America has one of the most progressive tax system of any country.
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-inco...
>The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (38.5 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (29.9 percent).
IMO, this is one of this is why the American government seems so bad at spending money. It's not their money, so there's little incentive to care if it's misappropriated.
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-inco...
>The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (38.5 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (29.9 percent).
IMO, this is one of this is why the American government seems so bad at spending money. It's not their money, so there's little incentive to care if it's misappropriated.
What percent of wealth does the top 1% possess vs the bottom 90 percent combined?
Wikipedia says the top 1% possesses precisely 38.5% of the country's wealth, so it's more than reasonable that they shoulder at least 38.5% of the taxes. [1] This stat is also from 2016. That divide has grown immensely these past few years.
The stat the Tax Foundation presents is made to make us sympathetic towards people who control basically the entire nation's wealth and pay, frankly, very little. There's a reason they're not putting their wealth in the EU or developed Asian countries--they'd be paying more.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...
Wikipedia says the top 1% possesses precisely 38.5% of the country's wealth, so it's more than reasonable that they shoulder at least 38.5% of the taxes. [1] This stat is also from 2016. That divide has grown immensely these past few years.
The stat the Tax Foundation presents is made to make us sympathetic towards people who control basically the entire nation's wealth and pay, frankly, very little. There's a reason they're not putting their wealth in the EU or developed Asian countries--they'd be paying more.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...
Income and this income taxes are first derivatives of wealth. It doesn't make sense to directly compare the two. The wealthy spend relatively little of their wealth on discretionary spending.
Ordinary income is not the first derivative of wealth, capital gains also contribute.
>The wealthy spend relatively little of their wealth on discretionary spending.
So they have unnecessary wealth just sitting around that they don't need.
So they have unnecessary wealth just sitting around that they don't need.
The rest of the world suffers much worse than that. Not only are the rich finding it easier to go to tax havens (because there's no taxation of foreign income), but they are also bleeding their best and most educated (education that they paid for) human capital to the richest cities western europe & us
(also americans overall are rich compared to the rest of the world at this time)
(also americans overall are rich compared to the rest of the world at this time)
> get insanely wealthy off the backs of Americans
You could just as well argue America gets insanely wealthy off the backs of globalist foreign labor. But in that case, no "duty" is owed it's just "fair" trade.
You could just as well argue America gets insanely wealthy off the backs of globalist foreign labor. But in that case, no "duty" is owed it's just "fair" trade.
American wealth is built upon globalized workforce, you're the next on the ladder that is throat cutting capitalist for the next class.
papito(4)
this is not new. nor is trying to surreptitiously gin up sympathy for tax avoiders' plights via polemical journalism pieces like this.
Pretty crazy with people like Eric Schmitt applying for Cyrus citizenship. The guy is worth $20+ billion. You'd think at that point you hate tax like the rest of us but recognise it makes zero difference to your own quality of life and this is what funds great nations.
US and other countries need to come down hard on wealth movement in general. Biden's global tax minimums are a good start but government will need to start limiting physical, financial and business access bloc nations to make this effective.
US and other countries need to come down hard on wealth movement in general. Biden's global tax minimums are a good start but government will need to start limiting physical, financial and business access bloc nations to make this effective.
Reading several of the comments, there’s a narrative about rich people “voting with their feet” in an attempt to starve the Federal government into behaving better. And some are jealous that this is only accessible to the elite.
And in other threads, I think people are expecting wealth to become hypermobile. Maybe even to the point that theft is so hard to reverse that digital money is only valuable given the protections of being a citizen of a certain kind of state.
People here have negative opinions about know-your-customer obstructions to personal banking, even though we are all hurt by money laundering.
And in other threads, I think people are expecting wealth to become hypermobile. Maybe even to the point that theft is so hard to reverse that digital money is only valuable given the protections of being a citizen of a certain kind of state.
People here have negative opinions about know-your-customer obstructions to personal banking, even though we are all hurt by money laundering.
> this is what funds great nations
Is the US a greater nation than Cyprus?
Is the US a greater nation than Cyprus?
Once when young, I used to dream of living and working in the US, how naive I was!
Where are you now? What do taxes cost you?
Not related, but I pay about 40% income tax plus a 25% value-added tax (VAT) on every purchase.
It's at a good level but my political belief is that this should be higher.
It's at a good level but my political belief is that this should be higher.
That's not an uncommon belief - feel free to write an extra check to your tax department and they will happily accept it. Normally tax departments have a whole system set up to accept voluntary additional tax payments for anyone who feels inclined to top up their contribution to the wellbeing of the state.
I stand to make a life changing amount of money through an impending future liquidity event. I cannot understand people who do this.
Throwing away US citizenship for mere extra dollars in ones bank account… What is the state of your life? Have you no family or community? Are you really willing to uproot yourself and your entire lifestyle for mere wealth?
The HN libertarians love to comment on articles like this and point fingers at progressives like they are ruining the US. As someone who would actually feel a significant impact from this, I can tell you I cannot relate to that position at all. Even should there be a wealth tax, or whatever, it would take Jan 6 levels of violent upheaval on the regular before id ever consider giving away my citizenship.
Maybe the minuscule number of people who do this don’t have all that much to tell us—except that avarice knows no limits?
Throwing away US citizenship for mere extra dollars in ones bank account… What is the state of your life? Have you no family or community? Are you really willing to uproot yourself and your entire lifestyle for mere wealth?
The HN libertarians love to comment on articles like this and point fingers at progressives like they are ruining the US. As someone who would actually feel a significant impact from this, I can tell you I cannot relate to that position at all. Even should there be a wealth tax, or whatever, it would take Jan 6 levels of violent upheaval on the regular before id ever consider giving away my citizenship.
Maybe the minuscule number of people who do this don’t have all that much to tell us—except that avarice knows no limits?
I am considering renouncing my US citizenship and it has little to do with money. I've been living abroad for 10 years now and I have no interest in moving back. I am in regular contact with my family and friends back in the US and I also have a social local social life. All I'll be giving up is paying US taxes and being able to spend more than 90 days a year visiting.
I'm surprised more HN readers don't view citizenship as a subscription tier. Non citizens can work in the US but it's harder to do the paperwork.
What's wrong with comparing benefits between service providers? Yes the US will try to save you if you get kidnapped by extremists, but they won't go out of their way to get you vaccinated against covid unlike the Chinese government who sent sinovac supplies abroad to vaccinate their citizens.
What's wrong with comparing benefits between service providers? Yes the US will try to save you if you get kidnapped by extremists, but they won't go out of their way to get you vaccinated against covid unlike the Chinese government who sent sinovac supplies abroad to vaccinate their citizens.
> subscription tier
One word: draft.
Would you die for your service provider?
One word: draft.
Would you die for your service provider?
I'm sure there's a small number of rich people gaming the system, but for the vast majority of expats the citizenship-based taxation system is almost cartoonishly cruel.