"patriotic" rich Americans renouncing citizenship because of taxes

[Enrique]

this is the opinion of a RWer at Forbes, which I am posting for purposes of ridicule. ;-)

http://blogs.forbes.com/beltway/2010/07/18/rich-americans-voting-with-their-feet-to-escape-obama-tax-oppression/

The Financial Times reports that the number of Americans giving up their citizenship to protect their families from America's onerous worldwide tax system has jumped rapidly. Even relatively high-tax nations such as the United Kingdom are attractive compared to the class-warfare system that Obama is creating in the United States. I run into people like this quite often as part of my travels. They are intensely patriotic to America as a nation, but they have lots of scorn for the federal government. Statists are perfectly willing to forgive terrorists like William Ayres, but they heap scorn on these "Benedict Arnold" taxpayers. But the tax exiles get the last laugh since the bureaucrats and politicians now get zero percent of their foreign-source income. You would think that, sooner or later, the left would realize they can get more tax revenue with reasonable tax rates. But that assumes that collectivists are motivated by revenue maximization rather than spite and envy.

The number of wealthy Americans living in the UK who are renouncing their US citizenship is rising rapidly as more expatriates seek to escape paying tax to the US on their worldwide income and gains and shed their "non-dom" status, accountants say. As many as 743 American expatriates made the irreversible decision to discard their passports last year, according to the US government – three times as many as in 2008. ...There is a waiting list at the embassy in London for people looking to give up citizenship, with the earliest appointments in February, lawyers and accountants say. ...“The big disadvantage with American citizens is they catch you on tax wherever you are in the world. If you are taxed only in the UK, you have the opportunity of keeping your money offshore tax free.”

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Guess they are looking for better health care....

SO now that they have made all their money from and with the US, they are dumping their citizenship?
Can their US assets be taken?

Doesn't the UK have higher taxes than the US?

Maybe the UK should look into their tax codes: If you are taxed only in the UK, you have the opportunity of keeping your money offshore tax free.”

Can all these "loyal" ex-citizens should be stripped of any advantages that being a US citizen might offer them...if there are any.

[louis-t]

9. UK has higher taxes in the higher tax brackets.

They were lowered some time ago after much complaining from the citizenry, but I think they're still higher than here. This sounds like a bullshit, propaganda article to me. Glenn Beck will surely be ranting about this in 3....2....1..

[AndyTiedye]

54. But the UK Inland Revenue Doesn't Have the Resources to Find and Tax Their Offshore Income

[miscsoc]

198. Also it's not just a matter of lack of resources

The system, and the allocation of resources, are set up with the intention of making Britain a de facto tax haven, on the spurious basis that that it somehow benefits us to host a bunch of rich freeloaders.

[Oregone]

24. I think you are crafting some specific scenarios to scream against

Maybe they just want to explore. Maybe they want to work abroad. Maybe some people want new experiences. Maybe they are going back to where their ancestors came from. Maybe they are seeking a country more aligned with their politics.

I think your response is as much bullshit as this article about this patriotic expatriates.

If someone just happens to live in another country, one perhaps far more mobile than America (not tough to find these days), and lands $100K government job, Im not sure why its America's job to levy an unjust tax against these people, on top of the taxes they are already paying for the society they live in. I guess I just don't get it.

[BrklynLiberal]

37. Thank you for that informative response.

[ljm2002]

65. Deleted n/t

[Oregone]

68. The article is a right-wing piece of shit

"The article never comes out and says that, but to me it is obvious from the piece including some of the quotes therein."

While that may be the concern of the rich fuck writing it, working class stiffs like me are subject to double taxation as well if I ever happened to earn enough. So, while their point may be bullshit, there are valid grounds to complain


"Believe me, the rich people who are renouncing their citizenship are not people who "just happen to live in another country" and who have landed $100K government jobs"

Unfortunately, a terribly written article in favor of a single demographic polarizes people against that demographic. Other people can suffer as well from the US tax laws on worldwide income.


"n fact I find that scenario laughable -- I mean, really? thousands of U.S. citizens are landing lucrative "government jobs" in other countries, working for those governments"

Government jobs pay quite well where I live. Many jobs do actually. Laughable or not, its entirely possible for a *normal* person to earn above the threshold required for double taxation.


"Well then the UK with its much higher tax rates (and much better social services, well at least medical) will be a good fit?"

This article is polarizing people against US to UK rich expats. This can happen no matter where people move.


"People who renounce their citizenship for purely financial reasons are most definitely not patriots."

A country that says pay up or leave forever deserves no patriots. That said, Id hardly think the subject of this article fits any definition of patriots, nor do I think there is any value in being a patriot in the first place.


This article is one big huge fuckn Red Herring. You people are so distracted with rich people moving to the UK, you cannot see how unjust it is to tax earned income of any expatriate who moves anywhere for a variety of reasons and earns above that threshold

Sadly, this article is written so badly, people cannot see the issues for what they really are.

[Art_from_Ark]

163. If an American citizen lands a $100,000 job in another country

then the first $91,000 or so will qualify for the foreign earned income exemption if the citizen is a full-time bona fide resident of the host country.

[Oregone]

168. Yes

And? Why does the US have a right to claim any part of what isn't exempt? Most countries do not.

[Art_from_Ark]

170. I can't answer that question

but I have been told by Canadians and Britons that their respective governments are interested in the income that they earn here in Japan, so I don't think the US is the only country that requires expatriates to file tax returns.

[Oregone]

172. Not really with Canada

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/t4058/t4058-09e.pdf

Method 1 – Non-resident tax
Canadian financial institutions and other payers have to
withhold non-resident tax at a rate of 25% on certain types
of Canadian-source income that they pay or credit you as a
non-resident of Canada. The most common types of income
that could be subject to non-resident withholding tax
include:
■ dividends;
■ rental payments;
■ pension payments;
■ Old Age Security pension;
■ Canada Pension Plan or Quebec Pension Plan benefits;
■ retiring allowances;
■ registered retirement savings plan payments;
■ registered retirement income fund payments; and
■ annuity payments.

Method 2 – Tax on taxable income
Certain types of income you earn in Canada must be
reported on a Canadian income tax return. The most
common types of income include:
■ income from employment in Canada;
■ income from a business carried on in Canada;
■ taxable part of Canadian scholarships, fellowships,
bursaries, and research grants; and
■ taxable capital gains from disposing of taxable Canadian
property.
You may be entitled to claim certain deductions from
income to arrive at the taxable amount. You can also claim
a credit for any tax withheld at source or paid on this
income.

See, thats not about "world income" but income pertaining to activity in Canada (most of which should already be withheld, and therefore, you don't even need to report it).

The US is taxing "world income", even if its earned in another country and taxed by another country (exemption and deductions aside). Are they the *only* country that does it? No. But they are among the few. Ill look for a list.

[Art_from_Ark]

174. Canadians living here in Japan have told me that they have to inform

the Canadian government of the income they earn in Japan.

And the foreign income of permanent residents here in Japan is subject to Japanese taxation.

[Oregone]

176. Inform or not, its not taxed

Even taxed non-resident income (generated in Canada) doesn't have to be reported in all cases:

"Do you have to report income that has
non-resident tax withheld?

If, in 2009, non-resident tax was withheld on any of the
types of income listed previously in method 1, you do not
have to report the income or tax withheld on your
Canadian return. In general, the non-resident tax withheld
is your final tax obligation to Canada on this income."

[Art_from_Ark]

179. You are talking about income generated in Canada by non-residents

I am talking about income generated by Canadians living in Japan.

Two different things.

[Oregone]

181. I realize they are two different things

But Ive already pointed out that only what I am talking about is taxed according to the CRA. What you are talking about, income earned abroad by non-residents, is entirely not taxed

[Art_from_Ark]

182. There is a difference between "non-residents"

and people with "residential ties" to Canada who are working overseas. If you maintain "residential ties" to Canada, you are subject to Canadian taxation, even if you are living in a foreign country. Thus, a Canadian citizen who leaves the country temporarily to earn money in another country would in all likelihood be subjected to Canadian taxation.

[Oregone]

183. Oh, for the love of God

Ive posted the CRA's very own docs. Its not their policy to tax "worldwide income" for non-resident Canadians, which diverges from the US's policy. Sure, there are exceptions when your income earned abroad may be taxed, and your Canadian income will also be taxed, but all in all, its a completely different game. For you to point out the existence of exceptions like temporary contract workers to draw similarities is very dishonest. The two policies are not on par, whatsoever.

[Art_from_Ark]

184. I beg to differ

I don't see what you are claiming as "dishonest". It seems like you are the one who is moving the goalposts.

Residential ties with Canada
Residential ties with Canada are typically seen as primary or secondary. It is important that you sever all primary residential ties when ceasing residency. Maintaining any significant primary ties could be looked at by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) as causing your residency to be maintained in Canada. Secondary residential ties are looked at collectively by the CRA.
No one secondary tie would likely be seen as causing you to be viewed as maintaining Canadian residency, however, efforts should be made to sever all ties to Canada. Some common examples of primary ties are maintaining a residence(s) in Canada that is available for your use, leaving a spouse or common-law partner in Canada and supporting dependants in Canada. Some common secondary ties are personal property left behind in Canada, maintaining Canadian bank accounts, Canadian credit cards, and professional and/or club memberships in Canadian organizations. In addition, it is important that you inform any Canadian residents making payments to you, such as financial institutions that you have investments with, that you intend to be a non-resident of Canada. Not only does this show the CRA your intention to be a non-resident, but it also ensures that payments made to you after your departure are subject to the appropriate non-resident withholding taxes. If these non-resident withholding taxes are not withheld by the Canadian payer, you will be required to voluntarily remit the withholding tax after you have left Canada. If your residency status is questioned by the CRA, they may ask you to submit a form NR73 - Determination of Residency Status (Leaving Canada). It is advisable that you fill in this form at the time of your departure and keep a copy for your records, in case it is requested. It is not advisable that you submit this form to the CRA unless you and your tax advisor have difficulty determining your residency status and you are not willing to accept the risk of being wrong.

Departure tax
If you become a non-resident of Canada for tax purposes, you must file a final departure tax return in Canada, due April 30th after the year in which you sever your residential ties with Canada. There are various tax implications that could arise in this final return. The most common example is the deemed disposition of certain assets you own, based on fair market value. Another example is the pro-ration of personal tax credits for your period of residency. Apart from the departure tax return itself, rental properties owned by non-residents have specific filing requirements in Canada on an annual basis. This is just a sample of some of the issues that should be considered on your departure from Canada. It is important that you seek professional advice to ensure that all of your departure tax issues are taken into consideration in your final tax return.

Maintaining Canadian residency
If significant ties to Canada cause you to be seen as a resident, keep in mind that you will still have to file a Canadian tax return on an annual basis reporting your worldwide income, even if this income was earned in another country. In most cases, you will be allowed a foreign tax credit for foreign taxes already paid on this income but you must still meet your tax filing requirements in Canada. If you do not file your tax return, you may receive a request at some point from
the CRA requesting you to file.

http://www.escapeartist.com/efam/86/canada_tax.html

[Oregone]

190. Is reporting the same thing as paying?

No, no, no and no

The US requires you to actually pay on world wide income for non-residents. This is not the case in Canada, exceptions aside. If anyone is moving the goal posts, its you here.

[Art_from_Ark]

194. I have no idea what point you are trying to make

You are the one who is moving the goal posts. I provided both anecdotal and verifiable evidence that Canadians living abroad may have to file a tax return and may even have to pay Canadian tax on foreign earned income.

If you are a Canadian citizen and go to another country to work, you don't automatically qualify as a "non-resident" of Canada-- you have to file a Canadian tax return for your foreign income unless you have convinced CRA (which used to be called Revenue Canada) that you no longer have "residential ties" to Canada. In some cases, Canadians living abroad but who maintain residential ties will have to pay Canadian taxes on their foreign income:

http://www.howlandtax.com/articles/foreign.htm

If you are an American citizen living overseas, you have to file a US tax return. But you don't have to pay any US taxes on the first $91,000 or so of that foreign earned income if you meet the foreign residency requirements.

[Oregone]

197. You provided exceptional circumstances dictating these cases

And I provided CRA documentation about handling of tax issues for *non-residents*.


"If you are a Canadian citizen and go to another country to work, you don't automatically qualify as a "non-resident" of Canada"

This topic is strictly about non-residents, not exceptions to the case like temporary contract workers and what not. For them, Canada does not tax world-wide income. Nice try.

[Art_from_Ark]

202. "Exceptions to the case"?

You seem to equate "non-resident" as being the equivalent of not living in Canada. But for tax purposes, you can live outside Canada and still be considered as a resident. And from the expat Canadians here in Japan that I have talked to, that seems to be the rule rather than the exception. If you don't want to file a Canadian return or pay tax to Canada on your foreign income, you have to prove to CRA that you are severing residential ties with Canada. It's not as easy as it sounds.

[Oregone]

204. Yes or no

Does Canada, like the US, tax world-wide income of bona fide residents of another country?


The answer is simply "no".

[unpossibles]

2. so they'd rather live in one of those "Socialist" countries with higher taxes instead...?

fucking idiots.

[Oregone]

10. No, this isn't the issue

They don't want to pay taxes to both countries (just the one of residence is fine). The only way to avoid this is to renounce.

Once day I may end up in the same boat if this isn't fixed.

[unpossibles]

12. but they still choose to live elsewhere and be in the situation to pay those taxes

yet they would choose to stay in the UK, which is allegedly everything they hate in a country.

[Oregone]

17. Choice or not, an unjust problem exists

You can "choice" it away until you are blue in the face, but taxing worldwide income of non-residence for amounts over ~$80K (and other loopholes Im not entirely familiar with) is shitty. Cannot an American work and live wherever they want without tyrannical, punitive taxation pulling them back, destroying that "choice"?

[unpossibles]

21. are you serious?

If you choose to work abroad, and make more than $80K for that choice, then why would you not want to give back to your country if you are so patriotic? Especially since every state in the union is suffering from budget shortfalls as well? If you want to work abroad and not pay taxes and renounce your country, then do so, but don't cry for me, Argentina. Sorry for the lack of sympathy, but you're not exactly hurting, are you?

[Oregone]

32. "then why would you not want to give back..."

Because, you are already paying taxes at amongst the top marginal rate (depending on the country) to the current society you are benefiting from. At that point, you are no longer receiving social services from the US, using infrastructure, benefiting from their standard military (if thats ever the case), etc. You aren't escaping obligations, but simply shifting them to a more relevant context. For every shift of an emigrant, and immigrant should theoretically offset that (who is not obligated normally by their country of origin to pay taxes to two different entities on the same monies).

Its as unjust as having the state of your birth continue to tax your income if you move to the state next door.

[unpossibles]

51. giving back is not tyranny

again, if you wish to not give back to the system which allowed you to become successful in the first place - or your parents to do so, as the case may be - then go ahead and renounce your citizenship. I am fine with that, honestly.

And unlike the other reply, I am not trying to "redistribute anyone's wealth" (as much fun as it is to read rightwing smear tactics on an allegedly Democratic board...), i am saying that if the very system which gave you the opportunity to succeed is no longer important to you once you have succeeded then go ahead and abandon it.

[Oregone]

57. Tell that to state governments

Shouldn't they be able to tax people born there, for life? How about counties, whose tax base paid for roads and schools you once used?

When does it end? Cities? They gave you a nice place to live, didn't they? Maybe your birth city should forever have some cut of your earnings, since you "owe" it to them.

You want my children to "give back" too? My son is a US citizen (dual) who may never receive a penny in US funding. Is it just that he will have to pay taxes twice on monies he may earn in his life? Is it? Maybe he should also pay to the city and state of my birth, because without my birth, his existence would not have been possible...


"i am saying that if the very system which gave you the opportunity to succeed is no longer important to you once you have succeeded then go ahead and abandon it."

Essentially, you are devolving into rhetoric, appealing to notions of "opportunity" as a basis for taxation (rather than the sane funding of current services one may benefit from and use). Honestly, I think you are so stuck on this grander notions of "giving", "duty", etc, its blinding you a bit to the purpose of taxes in the first place: to fund a government. Taxes are not about honor grand noble notions, but about funding so government can function and provide services

[unpossibles]

71. You are correct - taxes fund the government which represents us

but you fail to remember that the services you DID use to become successful were funded largely by other people before you and that you are lucky they were not as selfish as you sound. I won't apologize for saying you are using right wing rhetoric, that paying taxes is tyrannical, etc., AND that you are creating a strawman with the argument about state/local taxes, because it's not the same thing. The right never stops to consider that anyone but themselves are responsible for their own success, and pat themselves on the back so hard they never stop spinning.

Furthermore, I did not say anything about your children, but was alluding to the fact that a lot of people who can afford to go overseas to make their fortunes can do so because they grew up in an environment where their parents' success (and the society which allowed them to become successful) allowed them certain opportunities. There's nothing wrong with that in the slightest, other than the denial that it happens from the boot-strap-pullers who were born on third base and think they hit a triple, and who think they would have been just as successful if born on an island with no government or resources which creates the very environment of stable consumers which enables them to idealize their dream.

In short: get over yourself already.

[Oregone]

74. Labeling me a right winger is easier than thinking critically

"the argument about state/local taxes, because it's not the same thing."

Yes it is. You grew up using these services; you fail to remember that the services you DID use to become successful were funded largely by other people before you.

You need to get over yourself already and cut a huge check to the city and state of your birth, because you owe it to them. You must give back already.

After all. Taxes aren't about generating sufficient revenue to run state services that you currently use & depend upon. They are about honoring past municipalities for blessing us at one time with their services; we must therefore tithe appropriately.

[unpossibles]

76. Your condescension goes so far in making your point

just as I am sure my sarcasm is making you realize what you are saying, and how it sounds completely ridiculous. Fwiw, I did move back to the State where I was born (NY), which has high tax rates. And you know what? Our parents and their parents somehow managed to make a living for themselves despite the tyranny (lol!) of having to pay taxes.

If you want to ignore the fact that taxes do in fact pay for the society in which we live, and that without said society and its infrastructure it would be damn hard to be successful in business then you are not worth talking to, much less trying to explain anything to. have fun renouncing your citizenship since you think it's so wrong to have to pay for anything. I often wonder how people manage to become so wrapped up in their sense of entitlement, perhaps you can give me an account of your shining success and how you managed despite being oppressed by the evul govermint....

[Oregone]

80. LOL

"I did move back to the State where I was born"

Oh, but what about the state you moved from? Do you continue paying taxes there for life? You did benefit from their services for some length of time after all, and therefore, owe a lifetime of taxes and tithes to them (just like a US naturalized citizen who decides to go home). And each city....


"Our parents and their parents somehow managed to make a living for themselves despite the tyranny (lol!) of having to pay taxes."

Oh yeah, and they were probably being taxed by multiple entities on the same government level during this time? Or no...oh yeah, thats just non-resident citizens abroad we are talking about here, so your point means next to nothing.


"If you want to ignore the fact that taxes do in fact pay for the society in which we live"

Non-resident citizens don't live in your society. They live and pay taxes in a different one.


"since you think it's so wrong to have to pay for anything."

If I thought that, I wouldn't be paying taxes in the foreign country & province in which I live. But I do. I also have no issue doing so.


"perhaps you can give me an account of your shining success and how you managed despite being oppressed by the evul govermint"

Im not oppressed. I don't make enough for double-taxation. But since this doesn't yet effect me, it doesn't mean I still don't care about its nonsensical nature.

[unpossibles]

84. have fun storming the castle

I assume you also are against the "death tax" too. :crazy:

[Oregone]

85. No

Im against taxing the same earned income twice by two government entities at the same government level (like two states, or two cities, or two countries), IF the person is a non-resident who does not use the service of that government.

I am specifically talking about 1040NR/Form 2555

I no more want you to pay taxes in every state you ever lived in for life than I think people should do the same for each country they are a citizen of (deduction aside).

[bergie321]

150. Will the State National Guard

Of my former state airlift me to safety if I am in danger in my new state? Does my old state maintain an embassy in my new state? Americans abroad do still enjoy some services provided by the American government. They need to pay for these.

[Oregone]

152. Exactly

Each times chaos ensues and Canda is overthrown by terrorists, Ill get an airlift

:rofl:

[Vincardog]

"The TAXES you pay to foreign countries are deducted from your US taxes. Just as the state taxes

are.

[Oregone]

63. For more info, read:

http://taxes.about.com/od/taxhelp/a/ForeignIncome.htm

This article is regarding Expatriate Tax Form 2555 filed with 1040NR


As you describe it, thats how my taxes worked the first year I moved (I filed abroad, and then filed a 1040 as a resident and deducted the foreign taxes). Since then, my tax situation changed the following year, filing as a bonafide resident of another country.

At the end of the day, the same monies are being taxed twice in certain situations by two different government entities for (not for a poor sap like me)

[Veruca Salt]

203. Someone said it's a lot like paying the feds and state

but it seems to me that since you'd be paying the feds and foreign country you'd be paying more because most state income taxes are well below the federal tax rate.

Though it seems like it would be variable depending on how much is earned if one were to take the foreign exemption as with state taxes one is generally paying on the same income amount they are reporting to the feds.

[MattBaggins]

100. Should you still get to vote then if you are not using any of the services

nor have any obligations?

[ieoeja]

104. You can see his thoughts on the obligations of citizenship in post #98 (link provided).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8774269&mesg_id=8775510

[Oregone]

106. Exactly. I don't think people should pay fees to have Inalienable rights

In fact, I didn't even know taxation was about that. I was under this oblivious cloud that made me think it was about funding government services & infrastructure

[Oregone]

105. What do you think?

Is the ability to vote in a country you are a citizen of a birth right? Or is that secure only through a continued financial payment to the government? If so, should all people who do not pay the government a certain sum be allowed to vote? What does the constitution say regarding voting?

[ieoeja]

107. The Constitution says nothing regarding voting.

It should. Jesse Jackson, among others, has been pushing for a voting rights amendment.

[Oregone]

109. Well, in that case, a poll tax is fair game, eh?

Except it isn't, according to certain interpretors of the constitution who have more relevance and authority than you.

[MattBaggins]

113. You should be a bit more politer on this one

particularly since you know not of what you speak of. Fat Tony was very clear in his Bush v. Gore opinion that there is no inherent right to vote in the constitution. Unfortunately Fat Tony is an interpreter of the constitution who has more relevance and authority than you.

[Oregone]

119. Hm...you sure?

Firstly, I was referring to an earlier Supreme Court decisions directly regarding poll taxes. After all, thats a bit more relevant to the discussion at hand (fees for the right to vote). The equal protection clause was determined to be violated by poll taxes in the 60s by the Supreme Court.

Secondly, the part of the opinion you referred to found that it was also the recount itself that violated this very clause (7-2). People's ability to vote were being interfered with by non-homogenous recount procedures employed in different counties, according to the Supreme Court.

[ieoeja]

116. Some of the Amendments addressed voting issues.

In the poll tax case, the 24th Amendment wiped it out.

What is still missing is something that says people have the right to vote except under specific circumstances. Hence, the push for a voting rights amendment.

Such an amendment would push back against various attempts at disenfranchisement, typically used against African-Americans. For example, Republicans send fewer and older voting machines into African-American communities. The AA population has a much higher rate of felons which many "red" states ban from voting. The purpose of that ban should have had progressives up in arms after it was used to keep 80K Black voters from voting in Florida in 2000 (most of whom were not felons, but had similar sounding names to a felon in Texas).

[MattBaggins]

108. I'd like to see it as a birth right

but Fat Tony and his Cronies don't feel that way.

I just want to know where the middle ground is. No representation without taxation. Ask not what you can do for your country but what what your country can do for you.

Just wondering where the flip side is. Do I have to pay for and live under what you decide to vote for while not living here? If you were to retire and return to America am I obligated to now pay for you? Do you still get medicare and SS or do you agree to sign a waiver not to use them?

[Oregone]

112. What I decide isn't going to make a difference anyway

:)

But, being that its a paper ballot, at least it has a fair chance of being counted. Haha.


Oh, as for Medicare and SS, thats all handled under tax treaties and whatnot. My fair share will be paid easily by that time

[MattBaggins]

114. And the rest of it?

If an expatriate votes for a war monger I have to pay his share?
If an expatriate votes for Tax cuts for corps I have to pay his share?
If an expatriate votes to defund schools or programs I have to pay his share?

I don't understand why I should have to live under the decisions of people who turn do not have to.

[Oregone]

120. Heh.

You really think one vote makes a difference or something?


"I don't understand why I should have to live under the decisions of people who turn do not have to."

Its called life. Life sucks. Its a bitch. We all are affected by decisions people make, who are immune to the consequences. Its just something that youll never fix through tax code, no matter how hard you try.

[MattBaggins]

125. So the tax situation is also a "life sucks" type of thing.

[Oregone]

127. I agree, and thats the real way to "defend" this

Essentially just admit life sucks and the country is a backwards cesspool requiring continuous fees for citizenship to the hell-hole (something Ive hinted on in other replies).

All this talk about duty, giving-back, securing the "right to return", paying for "rights of citizenry" is a load of crap. You got money, an asshole nation state wants it, and they have the power to get it. If thats your definition for what is "right" ("might"), all the power to ya.

[sui generis]

30. move over fellow monster

the villagers are getting agitated.

Yes, this call to "patriotism" is pretty hollow if we're not all treated fairly and equally by our nation. It's not merely about amounts over 80K - if you're working in the EU you're paying 100% of your U.S. taxes at all amounts, and an additional tax on the amounts you've earned over 80K, not less any VAT or other local taxes you've paid to the country in which you keep and spend your money.

Alas there is a contingent on DU who believe that being progressive involves redistributing everyone else's wealth, yet if put in the exact same position would almost certainly be talking about fairness rather than inequity.

Some days you just have to wear your flame suit and take the heat.

[MattBaggins]

115. Would you like to come back and visit?

Do you feel I should be keeping up on your share so you can enjoy yourself when you come back? I should be paying your share while you're out cavorting with communists and terrorists?

[Oregone]

124. "I should be paying your share while your out cavorting with communists and terrorists"

You are channeling Colbert here, right?

[sui generis]

193. Oh no you dint

Well my preciousss bagginsis, while you are here cavorting with Fred Phelps, conservative blowhards and your own "circle", you can have my share. The point is in anyone's life it is THEIR decision, and not yours. I know that upsets you enough to accuse someone like me of hanging out with communists and terrorists, which I do merely by participating on DU no matter what country my ass happens to be in, but like birthin', fuckin' and whether you use your left hand or your right hand matters of citizenship ARE personal and beyond the judgment of people like you.

Take your fascist pseudopatriotic crap answer and figure out that if I'm no longer a citizen of the U.S. I can visit the U.S. just as you can visit my country of choice. Would you like to come back and visit? What the hell?

vuh.

[bergie321]

149. "Cannot an American work and live wherever..."

No. If they don't want to pay American taxes, they can give up their American citizenship and all of the benefits that entails.

[sui generis]

195. well, yes. That IS the point

if one of the benefits is that one is taxed unreasonably (and a 70% EFT is unreasonable) then it is in the realm of consideration.

Why is it Americans seem to think they have cornered the market on "freedom"? America is not a shining beacon for the middle class. The poor in America live qualitatively better than anywhere else on the planet, with the exception of health care and opportunity. The middle class are hamstrung with ridiculous debt, ultra conservative blowhard on every education board telling you that you better give intelligent design equal time, fighting prayer in the school, religion in government and assholes who think they have a right to tell you who you can and can't marry in EVERY state.

You still don't have mandatory recycling, a decent retirement system, fair labor practices for non-union workers, universal healthcare, or a host of other "benefits" that are readily available in nearly every other country in the EU and Canada.

Most of the shit I've seen spewed on this thread sounds like classic rejection psychology, "you can't fire me I quit!!" and "I broke up with her, not the other way around". It's juvenile posturing silliness from people who will never be in a position to seriously consider their options, so it's also irrelevant.

[MedicalAdmin]

206. Hmmmm - I wonder if the RW author is fudging a bit.

I've been an expat and yes you have to file taxes, but....

For many of the expats I know who have chosen to renounce their old citizenship it is more about quality of life. They just don't want to leave their new homes and are willing to forgo citizen ship in Empire America to do so. I wonder if the author isn't cheery picking a situatiion that largely doesn't exist and making something else about it.

My RW relatives have stopped talking politics in my presence because they know that I will shoot them to pieces all while being calm and polite. One of the big lies they repeat is that rich people create jobs and if they leave then the jobs leave with them. The problem with this BS is that we still control the border and access to the largest market on the planet. Plus, I always ask them to look around and tell me where all these jobs are.

But I don't beleive for a moment that most expats giving up their citizenships are doing so because of almost nonexistant taxing.

[sinkingfeeling]

28. Not exactly the way it works. While the US IRS says you pay taxes on worldwide income, if

you are living in an EU country, you deduct the taxes paid in that country when filing US taxes. If you give up your US citizenship, then you give up the benefits of the tax treaty.

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=97130,00.html

If you are a U.S. citizen or a resident alien of the United States and you live abroad, you are taxed on your worldwide income. However, you may qualify to exclude from income up to $91,400 of your foreign earnings. In addition, you can exclude or deduct certain foreign housing amounts.

[Oregone]

35. Ive already mentioned that (I use that exclusion myself)

They must of upped it to ~$90K recently. Still...not sure why taxing earned worldwide income above that amount is "just" by any measure

[northzax]

123. you know that almost no one actually double pays, right?

here's how the game works. you get a roughly $95k exemption. you then deduct all the taxes you pay on any amount above that to the country of residence. The reason people give up their US citizenship to avoid taxes is to avoid the rules about foreign income. the UK Inland REvenue doesn't tax money made outside the UK for UK residents. the US taxes global income (minus, of course, any taxes paid in the country it is earned in.)

[Hawkowl]

13. They can avoid taxes completely

In most countries, if you are a citizen of country A, you can go live in country B, and not pay income taxes to country A while living in B. In the US you'll pay taxes to the US as well as the country you are living in, country B.

So the greedy bastards will give up their citizenship for a few percentage points of taxes. Whereas I'd give up mine for an enlightened government and universal healthcare.

[The Backlash Cometh]

56. Maybe they want to leave to escape the religious insanity that's taking

over this country?

[unpossibles]

73. I could understand that perfectly

it's the people who complain about being taxed for the services they used to become successful that get me. It's the same people who don't think twice about breaking the rules but will complain when someone else does it, and they should count themselves lucky that the people who were paying when they were trying to pull themselves up were not as cheap (and at a higher rate I may add).

[sui generis]

92. yes but this is kind of off topic

it's not that they didn't pay taxes - taxation is a collective enterprise that benefits the collective - it's that they are exercising their choice to choose a country that offers a better deal for citizenship. It really is that simple.

America is NOT #1. Having said that I'm not referring to the article itself but to the process that some people are considering is an alternative to remaining a U.S. citizen. The IRS is not the arbiter of fairness in any capacity to anyone and I gather that many of the people who already live and earn abroad and have been doing so for a while are perfectly happy relinquishing their U.S. citizenship in favor of better education, health care, and less exposure to crazy islamic jihadists everywhere on the planet due to our oil greed as a nation, overprotected economic foreign interests and lack of human rights policies.

But if it's easier to characterize everyone willing to walk away from a glorious U.S. citizenship as evil, greedy and stupid, that's what this forum is for, along with bathroom walls and group urinals.

[unpossibles]

175. no, I agree that it's not a bad idea sometimes to become an expatriate

I am saying that to do so simply because of taxation is somewhat silly, really.

[villager]

3. hmm... can we get rid of our entire vampire class, then?

n/t

[sui generis]

6. yes, and then the sheep would only have each other to blame.

Next.

[villager]

22. so, to not be a sheep, you adulate the rich?

And hold the financial elites responsible for... nothing?

Next?

[sui generis]

25. "the rich", no I just think people that use terms like

"the rich" and "the poor" have an agenda that has nothing to do with reality. Please send me YOUR copy of the "rich agenda" and I'll send you my copy of the gay agenda.

BTW don't put words in my mouth. This monster is pitchfork and flame proof.

[villager]

31. "Gay agenda?" What?

I see -- so the rich are people, too!

And saying bad things about the ruling financial elite and their interests is like stripping rights from LBGT people?

ergo, we shouldn't tax, rein in, or otherwise do anything "mean" to our financial betters?

And btw, you can get off Defcon 3, if you wanna. this is just a discussion board.

[sui generis]

34. dear villager

no. you got it wrong. Asking an intentionally stupid question is demeaning, to yourself. I'm saying that the "rich" don't have an agenda, just like gays don't have an agenda.

"the rich" don't act as a unit and can't be characterized as ubervillains as a unit any more than "the poor" or "the gays" or any other thuh.

The ruling financial elite. Really? That's so middle school marxist. You should upgrade.

[villager]

39. You should consider not making every reply a vituperative attack

But then, you'd never get much farther than considering it for a nanosecond, dear Sui.

No ruling financial elite? Really? That's so post-Reagan somnambulist Republican. You should wake up.

And if you simply want to discuss the ridiculous/unfair aspects of the U.S. tax code -- which you allude to elsewhere in this thread (which mostly affect people not in those financial elites), you can do that. Even without attacking people in a reflexive, the girl-can't-help-it kinda way...

[sui generis]

47. um vituperative?

you are heterodyning off of me, apparently.

So if all the rich people leave that would leave only middle class (and lower class by some standards of the village) people in the U.S.

You're still going to have unemployment. You're still going to have "haves" and "have nots". You're still going to have people who feel like they weren't given the same opportunities as other people who will always look to blame someone else.

Was that too vituperative? That was my original point. Phrases like "ruling financial elite" and intentionally mischaracterizing my statements are a form of attack, but you're smart enough to know that. Playing hurt and put-upon after you detect my lack of patience is just so . . . .passive aggressive, at least in outward appearance.

Having said that I am willing to dial up the civility, but I'm reading some pretty nasty off-with-their heads crap downthread that is disappointing and dismaying.

[villager]

50. um, yes -- but thanks for ratcheting up the civility in this sub-thread

You seem to be saying there are "Animal Farm" like aspects to getting rid of all the "rich," as people vent in this thread.

And there may indeed be.

But that doesn't change the fact that the interests of ruling financial elites are what's being served by "government" policy here in the former experiment known as America, to the exclusion of, well, all other interests -- yours, mine, our children's, the planet's, et al.

So people are understandably enraged.

More so when one of the more blatant propaganda outlets for those interests puts forth a whiny piece on how our betters are "forced" to leave the U.S.

Who could help but say "good riddance!?"

[sui generis]

58. yeah, I ignored the source

just was discussing the heart of the issue.

I did consider that somebody saying "patriotic" was trying to prove a clutch-heart-salute-flag point, but apart from from that my EFT is as high as 70% on "realizing" revenue from holdings, and that's just not really fair. Doesn't enrage me, but it definitely makes me think.

Good riddance - well that's throwing money out with the bathwater. Yes some people are doing it purely for greed and because they really don't care what country they align with; they don't interact with normal people anyway in any way that we would recognize. But there are other people that look at what's best for their family down the road too. In my case it is more advantageous to remain a citizen for a lot of complicated reasons that don't involve feeling jacked by taxes, and it outweighs the jackery, but has NOTHING to do with patriotism.

I like the idea of America, which is completely separate than the idea that the IRS will do everything in its power to severely punish the tiniest tax infraction, even unintentional, and it's ridiculously out of control and even almost malicious. That's a turn off. The U.S. is more than its tax code though, but like any practical person I have to consider MY interests and the interests of my family first, before any other high-brow ideas of social equity and fairness, of which the IRS does NOTHING to regulate in either direction.

That's where I'm coming from.

[villager]

72. You see, that last paragraph about the idea of America vs. the IRS,

(or vs. the way IRS policy -- and taxation -- are actually applied) is spot on, and strikes me not only as accurate, but a good encapsulation of what America's become, vs. what it Might Have Been.

As for our own interests, and our family's -- well, as things spiral down, I think those will continue to get more precedence from people that the interests of "the country," which feel less and less like their own, to anyone (other than those getting the Defense Contracts, the corporate subsidies, etc...)

[unpossibles]

79. Go, Galt! Go far, far away!

oh jesus, I love how they paint scenarios of how awful things will be when the rich people overthrow their evil oppressors, yet fail to consider how all of those non-rich people actually form the backbone of what makes the rich able to be rich in the first place (such as labor, the consumer class, etc).

Jesus, I think I went to the wrong website this morning.

[sui generis]

88. didn't want to waste the keyclicks

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8774269&mesg_id=8774616

[ret5hd]

55. watch out!!! they might go all john galt on our ass!

[sui generis]

59. oh the Rand-is-the-devil proletariat

forgot about you guys. She was a limbically meth-incapicatated product of her time, not a prophet, so why are you so concerned about the fictional rantings of a crack head? Did something about it scare you?

Find a better or at least more meaningful devil and we'll talk.

[ret5hd]

64. i'm not the one making laughable threats to take my marbles and go elsewhere!

:rofl:

[sui generis]

67. I'm sure you would be COMPLETELY different in the same situation.

No?

I gather you are more noblerer or something.

[LanternWaste]

82. I suppose the "Sheep Agenda" is nestled between the two...

"Please send me YOUR copy of the "rich agenda" and I'll send you my copy of the gay agenda..."

I suppose the "Sheep Agenda" is nestled between the two...

[sui generis]

4. so what.

that's the point of having a choice about your citizenship. Next.

[Ganja Ninja]

5. No great loss.

Lets just make sure they don't try to come back.

[marmar]

7. F**k these pigs......

..... apologies to pigs (the four-legged kind).

[ladjf]

8. I believe that this article is fascist bullshit, not based on the real

data. nt

[Oregone]

14. "class-warfare system that Obama is creating in the United States"

It is bullshit. Partisan crap.

This has come up before. The US does have problems. Especially for retirees. As far as Im aware, its not something Obama is specifically doing.

You do get taxed twice on worldwide income over $~80K a year (not that Ill be there any time soon), with some exceptions. Its a bitch for some situations.

[tsuki]

26. These are the criminals that didn't make a deal when they got

caught having smuggled their money from the US.

[Urban Prairie]

11. 743?

As many as?

Does that mean that there are some that are still in doubt?

We'll sure miss 'em...

((sniffle))

[Gormy Cuss]

27. Yeah, out of 3 to 6 million according to the TIME article at the link

and none of the links have solid statistics about just how many renounce for financial reasons. All are loaded with anecdotes by poor-wittle-wealthy ex-pats.

[Taverner]

15. Patriotic, my ass...

[conscious evolution]

16. We should implement a 100% tax

on every asset such people own,imo.

[napi21]

18. According to Google, tne total tax rate in the US is 30%, the UK 29.7%.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=332116

They must be making one HELL OF A LOT of money to be worrying about .3% more in taxes!

[reformist2]

19. Let them leave.

These people think they are the only ones that make America great. Somehow I think we'll do fine without them.

[Oregone]

38. How does this solve the problem?

Essentially you are forcing people between a rock and a hard place; pay taxes on the same earned income to TWO different nations at the same time OR leave forever.

Why not just let them pay to the country they currently benefit from, fairly, and if they choose to come back, all the better?

Thats what many countries do. Is this a case of American exceptionalism?

[sinkingfeeling]

20. UK tax rates are higher than US tax rates on income, so many British use a form

of 'offshore tax havens' in the Channel Isles or Isle of Man to hide their income. However the UK is beginning to crack down on the British citizens that do that just like the USA has done.

Note: 50% tax rate on income above 150,000 pounds. 15% higher than the highest US rate.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm
Income Tax rates and taxable bands
Income Tax rates and taxable bands 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Starting rate for savings: 10%* £0-£2,320 £0-£2,440 £0-£2,440
Basic rate: 20% £0-£34,800 £0-£37,400 £0-£37,400
Higher rate: 40% Over £34,800 Over £37,400 £37,401-£150,000
Additional rate: 50% Not applicable Not applicable Over £150,000


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4102666.stm

"It is no longer possible to evade UK tax by simply salting away money in an offshore account."

HM Revenue & Customs statement

[sui generis]

23. speaking as someone who is taxed in multiple countries

on income earned overseas, it is absolutely nauseating what the U.S. believes they can claim as "income" and tax.

It's not that I don't pay taxes or don't want to pay taxes for labor and money in the U.S., it's that I have to pay double that tax overseas without any write downs anywhere else. So, if most of my earnings are overseas I will still pay taxes, just not U.S. taxes for the "privilege" of being a U.S. citizen.

Citizenship is a two way street - if I have to prove I'm worthy of being a U.S. citizen the U.S. had damn well better prove it's worthy of having me.

Having said that, I am a U.S. citizen and intend to remain that way, but I can certainly understand why someone would make that decision. This has nothing to do with political positioning or belonging to some "ist" or "ism" but more to do with common sense.

And for all you "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine" people - why wouldn't you consider the same thing in the same position?

[sinkingfeeling]

36. I think you need to look into tax treaties if you live in the US and make money in

multiple foreign countries. If you don't live in the USA, you may exclude up to $91,400 of income.


http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=96454,00.html

[sui generis]

48. depends on how it's earned

but I live here in the U.S. and that money has never been "American", i.e., earned here and invested overseas.

[eShirl]

60. "...the U.S. had damn well better prove it's worthy of having me."

just, wow.

[sui generis]

61. yes, it had better.

But if you have a point to make, please elaborate. All countries should compete for their citizens. If they did, generally speaking countries would have a value system that took better care of their citizens. That's my point.

[blindpig]

29. it has been my experience....

that the American 'expat community' in Latin America countries are the same folks who call themselves teabaggers in this country. For the most part they live in a bubble, having little contact with local folks, except for the bartender.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

191. That's the impression I get, too

If you look at websites like Escape from America, you find some people who are expatriating for a better quality of life in New Zealand or some other developed country, but a lot of the expats in Latin America come off as rich greedheads who like the idea of having full-time servants for $100 a month each. They live in gated communities that look as if they were transplanted from Texas, surrounded by tin and cardboard shacks (for a plentiful supply of servants, I suppose).

[MedicalAdmin]

208. Crap - I used to be one of those folks.

I guess I need to go find a servant and a hat with bags on it.

Oh wait, stereotype alert. You weren't talking about all expats, just the verminous ones. And yah, I met them too, but they were in a minority in my circles.

[daylan b]

33. In all the 'well fuck them' arguments the fact that

they are paying taxes to two different nations seems to be going above most heads.

It isn't about which nation has the highest tax rates when both nations are taxing them at the same time.

If you are working in the United States, yes, pay the damn taxes. If you are working in the U.K. you rightfully pay the taxes there and then you pay taxes in the United States as well for work that wasn't done in the United States.

[sinkingfeeling]

41. But you don't. There is an exclusion of up to $91,400 in income if you're a

US citizen and paying income taxes in the UK.

[daylan b]

43. And above $91,400....

....................

[Oregone]

44. Which is fine for a poor sap like me

But some countries are very socially mobile, and government jobs can pay upwards of $120K a year. Between my wife and I, if I ever scored one of those, how lucky would we really be? :)

Yeah, most people get there is an exclusion...but why, just why, do they have any right at all, exclusion aside, to money earned by a non-resident which has already had taxes paid on it?

[ieoeja]

75. It is a bit like paying both US and State income taxes on the same money.

US resident making $120K:
- $120k tax base for federal taxes
- $120k tax base for state taxes

US non-resident making $120K:
- $120k tax base for UK taxes
- $30k tax base for federal taxes
- $0 tax base for state taxes

Given that huge $90k standard deduction, the US resident and non-resident will probably end up paying about the same.

[Oregone]

77. Of course, since foreign countries don't have state/county/provincial taxes

:rofl:


"the US resident and non-resident will probably end up paying about the same"

No. For the person making under $90K, it will be in the ballpark. Above that, the sky is the limit.


But really...what right do they have to non-resident income earned and taxed abroad? I mean...really? Do you pay taxes for life to your birth state, no matter where you live (or do you stop doing so once you stop using their services and use anothers)?

[ieoeja]

81. The federal gov't has no rights vis-a-vis you.

But they do have the power to do this. And with that $90k deductible, I don't see this as being outrageously unfair.

[Oregone]

83. "outrageously unfair"

So, since it only affects people who aren't "poor", its therefore not "unfair" (despite the fact these are non-residents who are not even benefiting at the time from their taxed monies)? Is that about right?

[ieoeja]

86. Versus "outrageously fair"?

I don't consider someone making $90k to be poor. I see it as not "outrageously unfair" based, not on the ZERO effect it has on the poor, but on the negligible effect it has on the non-poor. You introduced the $120k example. And the effect would be little on a $120k income.

Hell, I MAKE just under $120k a year -- excluding an investment for which I currently have a net loss per year -- and work for a global entity. So it is conceivable I could actually end up paying this tax if I transferred to another location. And when I run the figures, I just don't understand why you are crying for me? It really wouldn't be that big of a hit.


Isn't the real question, "if you already contribute nothing whatsoever to the United States of America, then why should you have the rights of citizenry?"

[Oregone]

89. "And the effect would be little on a $120k income."

http://taxes.about.com/od/taxhelp/a/ForeignIncome.htm

One final tax planning tip. Starting with the year 2006, taxpayers claiming the foreign earned income exclusion will pay tax at the tax rates that would have applied had they not claimed the exclusion. That means, instead of having their income taxed starting at the 10% rate, most expatriates will be taxed starting at the 25% tax bracket.

So, ignoring the $90K of income that is taxed normally (or "fairly" for baseline comparison), the remaining $30K will be taxed by two separate entities at a high rate. This can have a substantial effect on $120K of income (depending again on the specific case and other deductions claimed on a 1040NR).


"Isn't the real question, "if you already contribute nothing whatsoever to the United States of America, then why should you have the rights of citizenry?""

So I take it that you would wish to strip me of my citizenship (I clearly do not make enough to contribute to the US); and to take this further, what about US residents who are homeless and pay no taxes as well (do the poor not deserve to be citizens?). But I ask: "What sane nation would forever exclude a potential future tax contributor?"

People move around in life, and see new worlds. If you force them to make permanent choices, as a nation, you burn bridges to potential revenue and potential cultural contributors.

BTW: just what active exercising of "rights" are these expatriates benefiting from of when abroad? Oh yes, they can run into an embassy when the government of Canada implodes in chaos (when they'll subsequently start paying US taxes again after repatriation)...but really...what value are they getting by having the "rights of citizenry"? You've shifted the notion of paying taxes from funding government services to securing ambiguous rights that people don't even really exercise abroad in the *vast* majority of instances. The bottom line is they don't really get those rights, and they shouldn't have to keep paying to secure them. When they come back, thatll again come into play and theyll pay (unless they can't come back).

[ieoeja]

93. I believe that stripping you of citizenship is unconstitutional.

If it is not, it should be.

No, I want to see you pay what we the people by way of our representitives in the US Congress determine is a fair contribution to retain your citizenship. If you refuse, then I want to see you, not stripped of that citizenship, but rather in jail.

You want to be a member, you have to pay the membership fees.


I am a little surprised they would put me in a tax bracket based on my total oversea's income. Does this ultimately roll up into a 1040? That could be why. Otherwise, you might see me receiving an Earned Income Tax Credit despite my large salary.

You know why this law exists? Tax cheats were establishing overseas residencies (while living "temporarily" 300 days out of the year in the US) allowing them to pay zero US income taxes. I assume you oppose that? If we don't have this tax, how do you stop that?

[Oregone]

96. "a fair contribution to retain your citizenship"

Oh, I never knew that a portion of your tax contribution was to pay to retain your citizenship. That is news to me. The poor and homeless having been living on borrowed time for far too long in my opinion. Their "membership fees" for citizenship are beyond due.


"I am a little surprised they would put me in a tax bracket based on my total oversea's income. Does this ultimately roll up into a 1040"

You file a 1040NR (Non-resident)


"You know why this law exists? Tax cheats were establishing overseas residencies (while living "temporarily" 300 days out of the year in the US) allowing them to pay zero US income taxes. I assume you oppose that? If we don't have this tax, how do you stop that?"

You are incorrect. Living 300 days in the US would make them a US resident (they would not be considered a bona fide resident of another country). This explains it quite a bit:

http://taxes.about.com/od/taxhelp/a/ForeignIncome_2.htm

Regardless, making sweeping and radical laws that punish everyone to shore up loopholes for a few rich fucks doesn't seem like sane policy. And hey...I thought this was about "membership dues" for the "rights of citizenry", not cracking down on tax cheats.

Lets try spinning it a 3rd way...Im waiting.

[ieoeja]

99. Taxation is *always* justified as the cost of participating in society.

In this case the non-resident citizen's participation is limited (the right of return; participate in presidential elections) which is why their cost is limited (no jury duty; much lower taxes).

You just accused the poor and homeless of not paying taxes.

[Oregone]

102. LOL....the "right of return"

Yes, you live in a country where your "rights" need to be purchased. What a defense for your country...."we are sooo fucked up, that you can't come back unless you are paying the piper while gone". Tell that to the sorry son-of-a-bitch who takes a 3 year contract in Toronto for the opportunity of a lifetime.

Im sure this is all outlined in the bill of rights...somewhere at the bottom is a fee outlined for "rights" being secured by the government.

:rofl:

"Hey! Its ok to tax these people because we are a sucky, fucked-up, shitty country with the power to do so!"

[LanternWaste]

154. Six of one, half a dozen of the other...

"where your "rights" need to be purchased" vs. the price we pay for being citizen.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. I imagine the way we look at it always best validates our worldview.

[daylan b]

87. Except for that whole sovereignty thing...

...but who really cares about that any way?

[ieoeja]

94. Are you claiming US citizens living in the UK should be exempt from UK taxes?

Based on our sovereignty?

[daylan b]

95. No, quite the opposite.

If money is earned in the U.K. it should be taxed in the U.K.

[ieoeja]

97. It is taxed in the UK.

And if you are a US citizen wanting to retain all the sovereign rights of a US citizen, then you have to pay tax on a portion of the money you earn regardless of where you live as long as you make sufficient money that the US tax will not be too onerous a burden.

Or do you think citizenship should come free of all responsibility?

[Oregone]

98. "do you think citizenship should come free of all responsibility"

Yes. Its supposed to be a birth-right.

[ieoeja]

101. You should probably have kept your opinion to yourself that citizenship incurs no cost.

I imagine most people, from the most extreme Right all the way through to the most extreme Left, and settling in comfortably with most everyone in between, will be of the opinion that that single statement alone makes your thoughts on US politics or legislation completely and utterly without worth.

:shrug:

[Oregone]

103. We're in the context of a financial costs here, bub

Nice try. You are implying people must pay money to be allowed to be citizens. Its absurdity.

[sui generis]

110. wow that's like, EVERYBODY

seriesly. Citizenship is a two-way street, and if the relationship is unequal that's kind of like sticking with a wife-beater (or any form of dysfunctional) relationship just cause EVERYBODY thinks you should.

I think YOUR characterization of Oregone is wrong - the point is it has to be FAIR to make people want to participate and if citizenship treats citizens like owned property, then it's perfectly reasonable to choose one country and one tax code, and may the best country win.

What is wrong or morally absurd about that?

[ieoeja]

121. Then we should be arguing "how much" is fair.

The numbers I have seen here don't sound like they would be all that onerous.

Oregone favors zero taxation for non-resident citizens. Not little taxation. Zero. Given that, what will Oregone contribute? What will make Oregone a participating member of our society?

Or more to your point that, "it's perfectly reasonable to choose one country and one tax code, and may the best country win," why would our country want Oregone to choose our country if Oregone plans on not contributing to our society? He wants the rights with none of the obligations.

MattBaggins is doing a better job of arguing this point upstream. So I am relocating to that subthread.

[Oregone]

122. "Oregone favors zero taxation for non-resident citizens. Not little taxation. Zero"

Which sounds absurd on first notice. But a Californian resident who was born in Oregon owes ZERO Oregon tax each year. This type of a person does not use Oregon infrastructure or services any more than the typical Californian would. It would be absurd to levy a lifetime tax against an Oregon-born Californian under any justification ("membership dues" included). Now, why does this person get off scott-free? They don't. They already pay taxes in California.


"why would our country want Oregone to choose our country if Oregone plans on not contributing to our society?"

The US only should want those who can financially contribute to it? Are there no other contributions one can make? Did you know I still am in the US selective service (military draft)? Did you know I can always come back and pay taxes too?

Is it better to just have a nation cut the cord, take people out of the selective service, and eliminate their ability to ever come back? If someone takes an oversea contract, tax em punitively or tell them to fuck off? Thats how a nation is supposed to work? That's a nation that deserves your "contribution" and service?


"He wants the rights with none of the obligations."

What rights? I don't practice US rights when I live in Canada. I practice Canadian ones, and I pay Canadian taxes and fees while doing so.

[ieoeja]

129. The right of return is the one we are mostly arguing here.

Oregone used the $120k example. As an employee of a global entity who makes almost that amount, the example he posited would describe me perfectly should I transfer for a time to an overseas location. And looking at the numbers, I don't see this as being punitive.

[Oregone]

134. "right of return" == unalienable right, endowed by the Creator, that you must pay a service fee for

Its sort of like if you cancel your cell-phone, but you want to keep your cell number in case you ever re-up. Except, in this case, the flying Spaghetti monster gave everyone a cell-phone when they were born, including babies of illegal immigrants, and didn't ask them to pay a cent for them until they switched to the iPhone.


The Creator sounds a bit like a crack dealer: "Psttt. Hey kiddies....take a free sample of a crack rock! Mwaaahhahahah"

[MilesColtrane]

199. Then they should have no problem renouncing citizenship to the "hell hole" they fled.

Instead of hanging on to that passport just in case.

[daylan b]

118. Really?

Please show us all how anchor babies fit into your logic.

Then go ahead and tells us why those who cannot earn a living for themselves ought to have their citizenship revoked.

[ieoeja]

133. I don't think your questions apply.

But, of course, as you so politely informed me elsewhere, I *am* an idiot. So it is probably just my idiocy at fault here.

What does an anchor baby have to do with citizens having obligations to their country?

Who said, "those who cannot earn a living for themselves ought to have their citizenship revoked"? Even the poorest of people in this country pay some taxes & fees. And are subject to jury duty and the like. As to those outside the country, any making less than $91K outside the country is exempt from paying anything, so this does not apply to them.

[daylan b]

135. Let me quote exactly what I was replying to.

"You should probably have kept your opinion to yourself that citizenship incurs no cost."

So the cost for citizenship for a child is?

No, the poorest in this nation don't pay taxes and are either mentally or physicaly incapable of serving on a jury.

[ieoeja]

139. "So the cost for citizenship for a child is?"

Lots of things do not apply to children. But once that child grows up, those costs sure as heck apply.



"the poorest in this nation don't pay taxes"

There's a conversation killer.

[daylan b]

141. It's only a conversation killer for somebody looking for an easy way out of a lost cause

Tell me exactly what taxes my grandmother who hasn't known her name or had any assets for the past six years pays in taxes.

Please, enlighten me.

[Oregone]

145. "But once that child grows up"

You mean, once they have earned income as residents? Yeah....sure. I buy that (though, I wouldn't say thats the cost of "citizenship", but rather, the cost of a functioning government).

And once non-resident citizens move back, they also fit that category.

[daylan b]

117. My gosh, do you really think exagerating my point makes yours?

Of course citizenship involves responsiblity.

However, if that money is not earned in the United States, I do not feel it is appropriate for the United States to tax it. Only in forum idiot land does that mean I think citizenship should come free of all responsibility.

[ieoeja]

126. Then what responsibility should they have?

Living and working outside the United States, aside from taxation and fees, I can't think of any way they can participate/contribute to US society.

Of course, as you so kindly pointed out, I am an idiot. So if you can come up with an alternative that is not actually more onerous than taxation, I would genuinely like to read it.

[Oregone]

130. Why should citizenship be dependent upon one's ability to participate/contribute?

There are a lot of people in the US who cannot substantially do so in any capacity.



"So if you can come up with an alternative that is not actually more onerous than taxation, I would genuinely like to read it"

Such as being enrolled in the Selective Service and fighting upon the request of your nation?

Oh no. That's not enough. You must pay, pay, pay money.

[ieoeja]

136. Were there a draft going on, I'd be satisfied with your Selective Service status.

But there is not. Nor is it likely.

And who said it was dependant on your ability? That's why we have the $91k exemption to ensure this hits nobody without the ability to contribute.

[daylan b]

138. 14

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Oregone]

140. "I'd be satisfied"

Im glad you make the rules then.

:rofl:

So Im sure if there ever is a draft, you will lobby the government to do away with this ludicrous double taxation, because people are earning their citizenship in other ways.

Earn their citizenship...oh my God. Thats hilarious. What did the anchor babies ever contribute to earn their citizenship?

[ieoeja]

159. This is the second "anchor babies" comment I read.

What does the nationality of the parents of a child have to do with anything I have argued?!? We have been arguing about citizens living outside the company and their responsibilites. There is NOTHING even remotely connected here.

But you did manage to work in a 2nd extreme Rightist position. Anti-spics and anti-poor (both of you tossed out "the poor pay no taxes" bullshit; you were smarter than your buddy, though; you backed off when I challenged you on it while he said, "yes, they do not pay taxes").


I have been polite in these subthreads. Despite the fact that I have been insulted within almost every single response to me by you and another person (not sui; the other one). Yet, until this post, I have refrained from responding in kind.

I tried. I asked for counter offers. All I got was "we're registered for a draft" that will never, ever take place. I signed in at this point to make a counter, "join the reserves," who almost never, but not entirely never, get called up. And once I stop being angry at TWO (which actually THREE if we count the "taxed twice" argument which is the beginning of your position) extreme Rightist arguments you have made.

[Oregone]

160. It sure is...since those are the type of citizens who do nothing to "earn" it until...

They are income generating residents...


"But you did manage to work in a 2nd extreme Rightist position."

You know what I think a right-wing position is? Citizenship and rights are things you must pay a financial fee for.

[daylan b]

132. Being an active member of society and citizenship are two different things.

Your argument that you need to pay taxes, pay fees, participate in, or contribute to US society for citizenship is nowhere in the constitution and is completely blown out of the water once you consider those who cannot care for themselves.

BTW, don't blatantly misrepresent what I said if you expect to be shown respect.

[ieoeja]

142. Yes, there are exemptions.

But why should someone earning over $91K be exempted? Because THAT is exactly what we are talking about in this thread.

[daylan b]

143. Please, try to keep up, "THAT" is not exactly what we are talking about.

Who the hell argued for exemption from taxes for earnings over $91k.

I'm arguing that the United States should not tax any earnings for labor performed in another nation.

[ieoeja]

157. Sorry. My reply should have been to one of the half-dozen "but what about children and poor people"

posts you made.

[daylan b]

167. It's certainly understandable how you wouldn't want to talk about them

I mean with the way you think their citizenship should be revoked for not paying taxes and all.

[Spider Jerusalem]

180. Well, no it isn't

Non-US resident making $120K (at least in the UK); 17.5% VAT on purchases and council tax at about £2000 a year for the average home in England and Wales (it's assessed based on property valuation). So: VAT at a rate on average of 10% higher than most US state-assessed sales taxes on most purchases. Plus an additional tax of a bit less than 5% of income in the form of council tax. Along with UK income tax at 40% (for earning more than £37K and less than £150K). So no, a US non-resident won't end up paying about the same. This calculation doesn't take other factors such as additional taxation in country of residence into account, nor does it account for cost of living differentials.

[Veruca Salt]

196. Is the council tax like a property tax in the US?

It sounds like it, unless there's an additional UK property tax. Does this apply only to homes owned or to rentals as well?

[Spider Jerusalem]

200. Owned and rented.

It's assessed to pay for local authority services (rubbish collection, police and fire services, schoools, parks, and so on). And yes, it's basically a property tax.

[northzax]

128. because you are a citizen of the United States

with all the rights and responsibilities that entails. you can access consular services at your local embassy, should you need to. you can request repatriation, one time, at the government's expense if you are unable to pay. if you get into criminal trouble, you can access legal services at your local embassy. you can vote in US elections. in case of emergency, the US will evacuate you. you travel under the protection of the United States. all sorts of reasons.

let me make one thing clear. if you and your wife both get UK government jobs making $125k a year each you will not pay a dime in US taxes. (remember, under the US-UK double taxation treaty, you can deduct every penny you pay in tax in the UK (including income, VAT, Council, etc) from your US tax bill. so let's see. two people making $125 each makes $250k. not bad. deduct 182k for the exemptions, and you're still getting taxed on $68k. which, in 2010 in the US would lead to a Federal Tax burden, with no deductions, of $9,362.50 (25%). from that you deduct everything you paid in UK taxes. which is 40% of $250k, or $100,000. your roughly estimated US tax burden then is -$90,638.50 oh, maybe you have to pay capital gains, or investment taxes. well, that rate in the US caps at 35%. in the UK, for that bracket, it's 50%. again, deductible.

unless you have income from multiple jurisdictions that remains in those jurisdictions. then it might make sense.

[Spider Jerusalem]

169. In other words you're arguing that citizenship is a privelege for which one must pay.

And not a right conferred by birth or acquisition. Which is an interesting argument to see in a supposedly progressive forum. (Fun fact: citizens of other countries have full access to consular services, repatriation, can vote from abroad, etc. WITHOUT PAYING TAX on income they earn abroad. Shocking, ain't it?)

[Oregone]

173. American exceptionalism dictates our citizenship is more valuable

So despite what other citizens may or may not do for their second rate rights and citizenship, you gotta pay for the Red, White, and mother-fuckn Blue

[northzax]

185. no, citizenship is granted by birth or acquisition

but you do have to pay your fair share.

[Spider Jerusalem]

186. What is the fair share of someone who is a citizen but NOT a resident then?

Whose income is earned in another country and consumes no services of the US? It should be nothing, no? You wouldn't pay taxes in New York if you were born there and moved to Massachusetts, would you?

[northzax]

209. once you move from New York to Mass

you become a citizen of Mass, not NY. so no.

[jody]

40. How many of those 743 were "wealthy Americans" and how many went to the UK. Those facts would put

the article in context.

[drm604]

42. They're going to the UK because they don't like "collectivists"?

That's like moving to Iowa because you don't like cornfields. :crazy:

If they're choosing the UK over the US then the problem isn't that they don't like socialism. It's all about fractions of a percentage point in the tax rates. Anyone willing to renounce citizenship over that cannot be described as "intensely patriotic".

What will they do if the UK raises those rates, or the US lowers them? Will they then try to get their citizenship back?

I suspect this article is complete bullshit or at least an exaggeration.

[Oregone]

46. This article is bullshit, spawning bullshit responses. People go EVERYWHERE for all sorts of reasons

I moved to Canada. If I ever got rich...or hell, maybe won the lottery (which isn't even taxed here), then Im paying the US piper (who isn't even educating my children or paving my roads).

[onenote]

146. exactly. I posted downthread Slate's demolition of this article

but it hasn't stopped some of those posting here from buying into it.

[RKP5637]

45. Let's see, so true patriotism means renouncing ones citizenship. Yep, RW logic. n/t

[LeftishBrit]

49. Ironic, in that some rich people in the UK have been threatening to leave if taxes go up...

And some people seriously think they should be able to hold us to ransom re our economic policies! As far as I'm concerned - don't let the door hit them, etc. Anyone who would leave, if they can't make maximum profits at the expense of public services to their country as a whole and the safety-net provided to poor citizens of their country, is NOT a patriotic citizen as far as I'm concerned.

[yella_dawg]

52. Good news! Good news!

Anything I can do to speed the process??

[The Backlash Cometh]

53. They're not really Americans, are they?

If they're not willing to invest in this country, they might as well live somewhere else.

[hughee99]

69. Might as well live somewhere else? I think they already do

I don't think this is about people fleeing to the UK to avoid US taxes, it's about people who already live in the UK (and paying UK taxes) who, because they are US citizens, are also paying US taxes even though they don't live here.

[David__77]

62. Bill Ayers is a US citizen, these people are not.

So his voice matters here, while theirs do not.

[rurallib]

66. Can they still buy themselves a US politician?

based on the Citizens United ruling, are they still able to contribute whatever they wish?

[old mark]

70. Goodby-don't come back. nt

[KamaAina]

78. These people make Rupert Murdoch look good

Rupe, you will recall, obtained U.S. citizenship for the sole purpose of circumventing laws preventing foreign ownership of U.S. media properties.

:patriot: :sarcasm:

[Jim__]

90. And, we should care - why?

[JonLP24]

91. I'm not mad at them

I think we are one of the few countries that tax citizens that are living out of country.

[onenote]

111. much of this "story" is misleading or hyperbole

http://www.slate.com/id/2252570/

Among other things, the 743 "renunciations" included not only US citizens giving up their citizenship, but permanent resident aliens, giving up permanent residency status. Plus, one reason for the upsurge seems to be an effort by the government to clear out a backlog of folks who applied in the past but never completed their paperwork.

I wish folks here would consider the source (in this case a wanker from the CATO Institute) before buying into these "OMG" stories hook, line and sinker.

[Xenotime]

131. Let them go. We don't need them ruining america.

[dembotoz]

137. if they become illegal aliens lets throw them in jail and deport them

[Cleita]

144. Let them move To Dubai. Of course IMHO they should have to forfeit

their American assets if they do. I'm sure most of them have billions stashed away there, the Cayman Islands and Switzerland anyway. The fewer of them around, the more of us and then maybe we can get our country back on track.

[Waiting For Everyman]

147. Oh, I'd like to show 'em what a tax increase really looks like.

If I had my way, the 7+figure hoarders would get hit with a 99% rate.

I'd designate it for income supplements to bring up the minimum wage to at least $15 per hour, and increases for the disabled and poor retirees.

The rich push others' wages as low as possible but they don't give a damn if a person can minimally survive on that. I think this approach fixes the problem perfectly.

I hope they go, like yesterday. They are the problem.

Added plus when they give up citizenship - fewer Republicans.

[L0oniX]

148. They shit under their own tree and now they have to move to a fresh tree to start shitting under.

[DailyGrind51]

151. Leave the country then, and don't let the Statue of Liberty kick you on the way out!

[LanternWaste]

153. It would appear their greed for worldly goods

It would appear their greed for worldly goods is a bit stronger than their patriotism...

[Initech]

155. Time to air-drop these fuckers into Mogadishu.

They don't like the government? Fine. They can go live in a country without one then.

[Spider Jerusalem]

156. The US is one of only a few countries to tax on the basis of citizenship and not residency.

Which is extremely fucked up. Expecting people who live in, say, the UK, who earn all of their income in the UK, and who pay UK tax on their income already (and not just income tax but National Insurance contributions, council tax, and VAT), is highly questionable at best and indefensible at worst.

[Oregone]

162. Green card holders too, as well

Ive read this other places at least

Its American Exceptionalism. Pay it or don't be a citizen, damn it (even if other countries don't do that)! Because after all, *our* citizenship is valuable!

This article was written as a defense to a contemptible group with a right-wing tone, so people responded without contempt. I wonder how many of them really understand the issue, or just hate rich tax cheats. When a "liberal" board is advocating ideas such as paying fees for rights and citizenship, we know there is some misunderstanding. Taxes are never meant to do those things, but merely fund government expenditures

[tammywammy]

178. Agreed n/t

[JCMach1]

187. the first 91K or so is exempt...

So this argument is a non-starter for me...

[Spider Jerusalem]

188. You live in a country with no income tax. If that weren't the case and you made enough...

you might and very probably would feel differently. So forgive me for not putting much stock in the value of your opinion as you're not even affected.

[hughee99]

158. I'm a little surprised by the number of people who commented about how these people should leave

without reading the story which explains that these people already don't live here anymore.

[Oregone]

161. Yeah. What they are really saying is those people should not be allowed to come back...and pay taxes

So, eh, sure....let's eliminate future potential tax payers.

[hughee99]

164. I don't live in a foreign country,

but I can't say I fault people who don't live in the US for not feeling like they should be required to pay US taxes (after taking care of their new country's taxes too) just because they're US citizens.

Can the federal government use the money? Of course they can, but when one starts talking about what they "owe" America (in financial terms) the argument for this taxation really falls apart.

[Oregone]

165. "Can the federal government use the money?"

No doubt, but come on...there are so many places the government is failing to enact a truly progressive and effective tax system. So these people are going to throw their venom at the people who already pay taxes to another country first? Seriously...there is so much more the US can do to raise funds in a more progressive manner from the people who have it and generate it domestically, but instead, lets do 5 minutes of hate against a group whose income is probably already being taxed more progressively in a sane country. Its backwards and out of place.

And yes...the whole fee for rights argument is ass-backwards. This is the type of mindset, that if it further entrenched itself into policy, would encourage me to renounce without regret.

[hughee99]

171. If the government started basing tax policy

on whether they could "use the money", I think even the biggest progressives would be pissed about what they saw.

[MadMaddie]

166. Good Riddance!

[Bonobo]

177. Unrecced because I don't like to see fish swallowing hooks.

And that's what you are doing. A fish swallowing a hook.

You think 700 people turning in the citizenship per year is significant?

Why don't you ask yourself why the article was written and what feelings it was intended to provoke in you?

That would be a much wiser place to begin to make sense of reality than believing what you read in Forbes uncritically.

[Enrique]

189. i posted it because it was so ridiculous

a blogger from Forbes warning us about all these good patriotic millionaires we are losing. It's almost like something from the Onion.

[Bonobo]

207. Kool. sorry for misinterpreting!!

This board is sometimes hard to interpret...

[MilesColtrane]

192. Those fuckers sure don't let reality intrude upon their world view.

Tax Rates at Lowest Levels in 60 Years

[Joanne98]

201. YAY! Do they need any help packing?

[fascisthunter]

205. boohoohoo