Americans: Pay your taxes—or lose your passport
Source: Wall Street Journal
Congress is poised to enact a law denying or revoking passports for U.S. citizens who havent paid their taxes.
Under a new law expected to take effect in January, the State Department will block Americans with seriously delinquent tax debt from receiving new passports and will be allowed to rescind existing passports of people who fall into that category. The list of affected taxpayers will be compiled by the Internal Revenue Service using a threshold of $50,000 of unpaid federal taxes, including penalties and interest, which would be adjusted for inflation.
The rule has been passed in similar versions by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. It is part of a highway-funding bill, H.R. 22, that is now before a conference committee. Congress is expected to pass it in early December.
... If enacted in current form, the law would take effect on Jan. 1 and would apply to existing tax debts. According to estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation, the measure is expected to raise $398 million over 10 years.
Read more: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/americans--pay-your-taxesor-lose-your-passport-142828207.html
TiberiusB
(487 posts)Then you get a massive tax "holiday" to go with all those subsidies and loopholes.
CurtEastPoint
(18,641 posts)No, but I bet the owners and the board of directors of that company do....
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)rtracey
(2,062 posts)Correct, but as rich 1%ers...I'm sure they owe taxes too.
Igel
(35,300 posts)Because all those deductions, exemptions, and exclusions are in the law. I take deductions and exemptions when I file my taxes. I guess "morally" I should pay more and not avoid the taxes I could pay?
But legally there's no obligation, unless I claim more than I can as deductions and take extra exemptions. "Um ... Minky Igel's not really a cat, he's our 5-year-old child. Yeah. That's it."
People assume that moral = legal, and that everybody agrees on what moral is.
Renew Deal
(81,856 posts)Earth_First
(14,910 posts)City Lights
(25,171 posts)geardaddy
(24,926 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Demobrat
(8,975 posts)I know a couple of people who owe more than that. They are both self-employed people who didn't pay their quarterly taxes or file tax returns for several years. The fees and penalties add up fast.
PersonNumber503602
(1,134 posts)I'm pretty sure it was mostly out of ignorance and a useless/shady accountant. While they were by no means poor, they were for still in the category of little people. Even more so now since it was a rather short lived business they had, due to the changing economics of their industry.
AllTooEasy
(1,260 posts)...they don't believe in paying taxes. They call taxation "slavery", and want to shut down the IRS.
...and yet they want increased defense spending.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)They don't want a VAT though. Who knows what they think.
Javaman
(62,521 posts)this is specifically aimed at the prols and the undocumented.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)Also keeps someone from running out of the country to his island get away to avoid his tax bill.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)... The worst of them, like Arab citizen Dick Cheney, will simply renounce their citizenship and move on to some other haven for the wealthy.
That's exactly why this will never pass into law, of course, but it's fun to dream.
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)For a couple hundred grand local investment you can become a citizen of several countries without ever even going there.
Malta used to be the big one; not sure anymore.
I used to maintain a Singapore Passport, but it was really psychological baggage from the Shoa.
I kind of half expected the Nazis to show up at the house any day like when I was a kid. I was ready to jump, bag packed, cash on hand, cash in foreign account. Even learned to fly and had access to a plane. Lucky I was never accused of a crime, because I would have looked like a fugitive.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)You are correct that the really wealthy won't be affected by this though.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)A person making around 100k a year can easily rack up $50k if they don't pay the taxes for a few years. While this is surely targeted at upper income people, it's going to affect way more than just the "volcano island lair" crowd. I'm sure those people will have no trouble working around this if necessary.
In either case, though, they're people who didn't pay there taxes, and didn't work out any kind of plan with the IRS to resolve it, so it's tough to have sympathy for them.
Igel
(35,300 posts)that are in the top 10% or higher.
What it will do is hit expats who pay taxes in the country where they earn their living but who still hold US passports. The US requires that income earned by US persons be taxed under US law, even if that person hasn't stepped foot in the US for a decade.
Those people care, too, because most aren't dual citizens and need their passport to continue working overseas.
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)So, a person would become stateless for not paying taxes?
AllTooEasy
(1,260 posts)You must be a U.S. citizen to hold a U.S. passport, but you don't need a passport to be a citizen.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)people from leaving... Lesson: get more than one nationality.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"Lesson: get more than one nationality..."
Or simply pay one's taxes.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)do keep in mind that a law like this can, and WILL be expanded.
More and more people are using passports as a form of the now required ID for flying IN the country, as well as over seas.
And that "threshold" of 50,000 can be lowered if the Gov decides it needs more money.
In fact, given the current bill, the "$398 million over 10 years" is really a paltry figure.
too paltry.
Laws that allow ways to get more money from people have a habit of getting bigger, not smaller.
AllTooEasy
(1,260 posts)I thought that tactic was ridiculous when conservatives puked it out. It sounds worse coming out of liberals.
christx30
(6,241 posts)expanded or abused powers. They have never misused power, ie, patriot act being used to catch drug smugglers.
Nope. Has never happened, ever.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I too, pretend that abuse will never be born from a chain of events. However, unless you can objectively deny the warrant of the slope, trivializing it illustrates you as petulant rather than her argument as invalid.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
International travel
History
From 1776 to 1783, no state government had a passport requirement. The Articles of Confederation government (17831789) did not have a passport requirement. From 1789 through late 1941, the government established under the Constitution required United States passports of citizens only during the American Civil War (18611865) and during and shortly after World War I (19141918). The passport requirement of the Civil War era lacked statutory authority. After the outbreak of World War I, passports were required by executive order, though there was no statutory authority for the requirement. The Travel Control Act of May 22, 1918 permitted the president, when the United States was at war, to proclaim a passport requirement, and a proclamation was issued on August 18, 1918. Though World War I ended on November 11, 1918, the passport requirement lingered until March 3, 1921. There was an absence of a passport requirement under United States law between 1921 and 1941. World War II (19391945) again led to passport requirements under the Travel Control Act of 1918. A 1978 amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 made it illegal to enter or depart the United States without an issued passport even in peacetime.
Restrictions
As per § 215 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (currently codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1185), it is unlawful for a United States citizen to enter or exit the United States without a valid United States passport.
As per Haig v. Agee and the Passport Act of 1926 (currently codified at 22 U.S.C. § 211a et seq.), the Presidential administration may deny or revoke passports for foreign policy or national security reasons at any time. The Secretary of State has historically in times of peace refused passports for one of two reasons, citizenship or loyalty, and criminal conduct or when the applicant was seeking to "escape the toils of law." Laws and regulations on restricting passports have generally been categorized as personal restrictions or area restrictions and have generally been justified for national security or foreign policy reasons. Perhaps the most notable example of enforcement of this ability was the 1948 denial of a passport to U.S. Representative Leo Isacson, who sought to go to Paris to attend a conference as an observer for the American Council for a Democratic Greece, a Communist front organization, because of the group's role in opposing the Greek government in the Greek Civil War.
In Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958), the United States Secretary of State had refused to issue a passport to an American citizen based on the suspicion that the plaintiff was going abroad to promote communism (personal restrictions/national security). Although the Court did not reach the question of constitutionality in this case, the Court, in an opinion by Justice William O. Douglas, held that the federal government may not restrict the right to travel without due process:
Six years later, the Court struck down a federal ban restricting travel by communists (Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964))(personal restrictions, national security, First Amendment). But the court struggled to find a way to protect national interests (such as national security) in light of these decisions. Just a year after Aptheker, the Supreme Court fashioned the rational basis test for constitutionality in Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1 (1965) (area restrictions, foreign policy), as a way of reconciling the rights of the individual with the interests of the state.
Transportation Security Administration
The issue of freedom of movement has received new attention in the United States as of 2004, particularly concerning the methods and practices of the Transportation Security Administration. On August 5, 1974, the Air Transportation Security and Anti-Hijacking Acts of 1974 (P.L. 93-366) were signed. Among many important provisions, this landmark aviation security law directed that regulations be prescribed requiring weapons-detecting screening of all passengers and carry-on property. The law is located in Title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.), sections 44901 (Screening passengers and property) and 44902 (Refusal to transport passengers and property). For many decades an airline ticket's fine print has contained an agreement by the purchaser to submit to a search for unlawful dangerous weapons, explosives or other destructive substances. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is responsible for such screening prior to departures from commercial airports within the United States since the signing of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (P.L. 107-71) on November 19, 2001. Freedom of movement is not denied unless a passenger refuses to submit to a search required by law. There are, however, a number of other safety and homeland-security-related issues covered in 49 U.S.C. Chapter 449 and Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations in the 1540 series that could impede movement, such as a passenger's name appearing on a "no fly" or "selectee" list. Regardless of the constitutionality of laws passed post-9/11 with respect to freedom of movement being a privilege, all U.S. citizens have the right to travel or move within and between the 50 states without the requirement of submitting to a search of one's person or property prior to travel or movement.
Another issue of contention deals with freedom of movement across U.S. national borders. The United States has long permitted persons to cross from Canada into the United States with few controls. Concerns about drug trafficking and illegal immigrants seeking employment have led to much stricter controls on those crossing the border from Mexico.
An attempt to ban travel to Cuba was deemed unconstitutional, but travel has been much hindered by the Trading with the Enemy Act which bans spending money in Cuba without a license issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the US Treasury Department.
Restrictions as punishment
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), codified at 42 USC 652(k), saw the beginning of restrictions on freedom of movement as a punishment for child support debtors. Constitutional challenges to these restrictions have thus far failed in Weinstein v. Albright and Eunique v. Powell. Federal Appeals Courts in the Second and Ninth Circuits, although expressing due process concerns, have held that collection of child support is an important government interest, that the right to travel internationally was not a fundamental right and that laws restricting this right need not pass strict scrutiny.
In a dissenting opinion in Eunique, Judge Andrew Kleinfeld categorized the measure as a punishment for unpaid debts. "This passport ban is more reasonably seen, in light of the penalties the states are required to impose for nonpayment of child support ... not as a means of facilitating collection, but as a penalty for past nonpayment." "All debtors should pay their debts. Debts for child support have special moral force. But that does not justify tossing away a constitutional liberty so important that it has been a constant of Anglo-American law since Magna Carta, and of civilized thought since Plato."
A number of constitutional scholars and advocates for reform strongly oppose restricting the human right to travel to a person who has committed no crime, and assert that the practice violates basic constitutional rights Similarly, anyone claimed to be in arrears on child support can have certain types of vehicular driver's license revoked or suspended, severely restricting their freedom to travel. Critics point to cases where the lapse in support payments was caused by loss of employment yet the response of revoking the right to freely travel by car further impedes the ability to resume payments by limiting the ability to find employment and travel to a workplace.
International Bill of Human Rights
The International Bill of Human Rights is an informal name given to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted in 1948), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) with its two Optional Protocols, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966).
Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads:
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights incorporates this right into treaty law:
(1) Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
(2) Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
(3) The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre publique), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.
(4) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
AND THERE WE HAVE IT, FOLKS. NOT A DONE DEAL, AND NOT A GOOD IDEA.
BUT WHAT'S ANOTHER INALIENABLE RIGHT DOWN THE DRAIN? AFTER ALL, THE CONSITUTION ITSELF HAS BEEN REDUCED TO A CRUMPLED PIECE OF PAPER....
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Doing almost anything requires the card: renting/buying a home, a car, being hired for a job, going to a school, getting medical help/.
and even being allowed to move from one's village to a city, which requires special permission plus the card.
Thus enters the problem of China's Ghost Children, who were born in violation of China's then one child law. Millions of them, hidden away by their parents, uneducated, unemployable, and thus they cannot care for themselves or for their elderly parents, which was one of the reasons parents wanted more than one kid in the first place, for old age security.
To be a legal citizen, Ghost Children must pay impossible large fines, well over 60,000 dollars, which few Chinese make in a lifetime.
Now, with the relaxation of the one child rule, the question arises of what will happen to these Ghost people.
THAT is how a law aimed at reducing population evolved over time to create non-citizens in China.
Laws of "Gov't approved ID" passed post 9-11 have pushed people to obtain passports even for internal country use.
Using the passport to collect taxes follows on the heels of allowing Gov. to take one's Soc; Sec. to collect on college loans.
Very slippery slope.
turbinetree
(24,695 posts)Last edited Fri Nov 20, 2015, 02:23 PM - Edit history (1)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/25/corporation-tax-rate_n_4855763.htmlHey, Congress, since your good old right wing U.S court thinks that corporations are people too, why don't you address this in your little old bill also, you really are cowards.
Honk-----------------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)The IRS casts a wide net with big mess that catches mostly little fish.
Turborama
(22,109 posts)yuiyoshida
(41,831 posts)to leave and enter this country. Under a Republican administration, they may as well build a wall around the country with a dome... no one will get in or out, without a huge degree of difficulty.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)Taxes is what keeps this country running, do your part or get out!
broadcaster75201
(387 posts)CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)If you think no penalities should be associatated with not paying your taxes, then Woohoo!
This isn't going to impact the vast majority of low income Americans as they can't afford international travel anyway.
So, what exactly is the logic of your statement? Go on and spell it out.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)which makes people see the "tax" part and not the "passport" restrictions part.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)thebighobgoblin
(179 posts)The latter tend to do their homework in advance.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)jaysunb
(11,856 posts)is dry.