NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11554721
America's Berlin Wall

Congress increases the ransom expats must pay to escape the taxman

QUEUES of frustrated foreigners crowd many an American consulate around the world hoping to get into the United States. Less noticed are the heavily taxed American expatriates wanting to get out—by renouncing their citizenship.

In Hong Kong just now, they cannot. “Please note that this office cannot accept renunciation applications at this time,” the consulate's website states. Apart from sounding like East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall, the closure is unfortunately timed. Because of pending legislation on President Bush's desk that is expected to become law by June 16th, any American who wants to surrender his passport has only a few days to do so before facing an enormous penalty.

That penalty is buried in an innocuous piece of legislation with the veto-proof name, Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax (HEART) act. The new law means active American soldiers will benefit from tax relief. To pay for that, Congress has turned on expats, especially those who, since new tax laws in 2006, have become increasingly eager to give up their citizenship to escape the taxman.

Under the proposed legislation, expatriates surrendering their citizenship with a net worth of $2m or more, or a high income, will have to act as if they have sold all their worldwide assets at a fair market price. If the unrealised gains on these assets exceed $600,000, capital-gains tax will apply. A study by the Congressional Budget Office guesses that the new law will progressively net the government up to $286m over five years. It is unclear, however, why people would suffer the consequences if they did not expect to save money in the long run by escaping American taxes.

That expats want to leave at all is evidence of America's odd tax system. Along with citizens of North Korea and a few other countries, Americans are taxed based on their citizenship, rather than where they live. So they usually pay twice—to their host country and the Internal Revenue Service. As this makes citizenship less palatable, Congress has erected large barriers to stop them jumping ship. In 1996 it forced people who renounced citizenship to continue paying income taxes for an extra ten years. Theoretically, the new law allows for a cleaner break.

But even as the law tries to prevent people from renouncing their citizenship, it may have the opposite effect. Under the new structure, it would make financial sense for any young American working overseas with a promising career to renounce his citizenship as early as possible, before his assets accumulate. For everyone else, plunging stock and property prices mean now may be as good a time as any to hand back the passport, says Kurt Rademacher, a partner at Withers, a global tax-planning firm.

In Hong Kong the temptation for Americans to switch citizenship is particularly strong, because of the territory's low taxes. On the other hand, banks and other firms who want to hire Americans may find it harder to do so, even though greater China is one of the world's fastest-growing regions. It places Americans in the awkward position of weighing their patriotism against their vocation.

That's pretty nasty. Charging taxes by citizenship rather than residence is unfortunate to start with, considering that you're rather unlikely to be using a whole lot of US taxpayer-funded programs and resources, but making it more difficult to get out of that is really not cool.

What do you reckon? Does this need reforming?

United State's tax laws have always needed reforming ever since they came out. Another novel idea by the government was to stop illegal immigration by making legal immigration virtually impossible.

Yes, it's damned annoying to have to file every bloody year in Japan, even though I fall well under the exemption.

http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11554721


That's pretty nasty. Charging taxes by citizenship rather than residence is unfortunate to start with, considering that you're rather unlikely to be using a whole lot of US taxpayer-funded programs and resources, but making it more difficult to get out of that is really not cool.

What do you reckon? Does this need reforming?

Hell yes it needs reforming, though not by simply chucking the IRS as some people would have us do.

We ought to be taxing based on location, not based on citizenship.

Don't even get me started on the legalized theft that is our tax system....

Don't even get me started on the legalized theft that is our tax system....

Yes, please, by all means don't get started on that crap. Taxation is not in any way, shape, or form legalized theft unless you somehow get by without using any service or products paid for by tax money, and even then it wouldn't qualify.

The tax system in this country is simply a mess, that's all. It needs reformation, not elimination.

Yes, please, by all means don't get started on that crap. Taxation is not in any way, shape, or form legalized theft unless you somehow get by without using any service or products paid for by tax money, and even then it wouldn't qualify.


Well since expats don't usually use any service or product paid for by tax money, I guess they fall under your 'even then it wouldn't qualify' exemption.

Frankly, taxing expats is ridiculous. Especially since we don't tax so many in the country who do use the services and products paid for by tax.

Yes, please, by all means don't get started on that crap. Taxation is not in any way, shape, or form legalized theft unless you somehow get by without using any service or products paid for by tax money, and even then it wouldn't qualify.

The tax system in this country is simply a mess, that's all. It needs reformation, not elimination.

I respectfully disagree. The income tax, if kept at all, should only apply to corporate profits, and never to any individual citizen. The current tax rate on corporate profit, especially with an elimination of tax breaks and subsidies, would be more than ample for the essential constitutional duties of the federal government.

Well since expats don't usually use any service or product paid for by tax money, I guess they fall under your 'even then it wouldn't qualify' exemption.

Frankly, taxing expats is ridiculous. Especially since we don't tax so many in the country who do use the services and products paid for by tax.

Definitely. Expats aren't using our services any longer, so why tax them?

I respectfully disagree. The income tax, if kept at all, should only apply to corporate profits, and never to any individual citizen. The current tax rate on corporate profit, especially with an elimination of tax breaks and subsidies, would be more than ample for the essential constitutional duties of the federal government.

What exactly do you mean by "essential constitutional duties"?

I respectfully disagree. The income tax, if kept at all, should only apply to corporate profits, and never to any individual citizen. The current tax rate on corporate profit, especially with an elimination of tax breaks and subsidies, would be more than ample for the essential constitutional duties of the federal government.

You'd have to get awfully creative with other forms of taxation to make up for the imploded tax base, if you did that. :p

What exactly do you mean by "essential constitutional duties"?

Article 1, section 8 covers the majority. Check Amendment 10 for the clarification that "All powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Article 1, section 8 covers the majority. Check Amendment 10 for the clarification that "All powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Sec. 8 covers everything under the sun. And what about the 10th amendment? State and local crooks are more honest than the 'federal government,' yeah? :p

I don't see how you'd enforce it, unless the country you're moving to will extradite you to the U.S. and A for simply refusing to pay taxes to a country you're no longer a citizen of...

If you acquire citizenship in your new country, most nations don't extradite their own citizens regardless of treaty with the US.

Sec. 8 covers everything under the sun. And what about the 10th amendment? State and local crooks are more honest than the 'federal government,' yeah? :p

All the federal govt needs to do is pay the FBI, the Army and the diplomats, plus a catering budget to fete the visiting ambassadors every now and again so they don't feel to neglected.

as to the "state and local crooks" nah, they're just closer to those armed bears the second amendment talks about I bet.

I don't see how you'd enforce it, unless the country you're moving to will extradite you to the U.S. and A for simply refusing to pay taxes to a country you're no longer a citizen of...
And you can never, ever, step foot in the US again.

Now if you don't have any family in America that's one thing, but otherwise...

My wife had this problem when she was living with me in London. Land of the free!

Yes, please, by all means don't get started on that crap. Taxation is not in any way, shape, or form legalized theft unless you somehow get by without using any service or products paid for by tax money, and even then it wouldn't qualify.

The tax system in this country is simply a mess, that's all. It needs reformation, not elimination.

I wasn't pushing for elimination, but I am quite angry about the system as it stands right now. The insane amount that they are collecting in takes and not even getting done the most basic things a government is supposed to do: protect the physical borders, see that laws are made, defined, and enforced, and take care of the things that are just too big to be taken care of at a lower level.

Instead, we have essentially open borders that a too-small border patrol attempts to patrol, a judicial system that totally scuttles any progress the border patrol or other law enforcement agencies make, and a legislative body that doesn't care if murderers and rapists stay to re-offend when they could have been picked up and deported on lesser charges before they really hurt someone.

Any given day, see how many of our lawmakers actually show up to vote on things. And don't get me started on pork. Pork politics is legalized theft any way you cut it.

And wait till the feces hits the fan in your town! See how much the government can help you! If you can't help yourself and you're not part of some non-government organization that is able to help you, then you're SOL. Not to mention security on the ground in a disaster zone - thats a whole other can of rotting worms.

God forbid the US government fund this tax cut by increasing taxes on the wealthy.


Why soldiers of all people are getting a tax cut is another matter of its own. Perhaps trying to make signing up more appealing?

Yes, please, lets tax the weathly until no one is left with the ambition or drive to succeed for the sheer fact that they don't want to lose 90% of their hard work to fund pointless alphabet-soup agencies, departments and other things that the Federal Government has no right to be spending the citizens money on. Because the idea of being punished for having the drive to succeed certainly makes me want to try hard and earn a ton of money :rolleyes:

God forbid the government should live with less, like almost every other American is being forced to do. No, we can't have that, so lets raise taxes, in general.

And here is a Constitutional lesson, free of charge:
Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have power-
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;—And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

And here's a side not on that pesky word, General Welfare as brought to you by James Madison, The Father of the Constitution and author of over 1/3rd of "The Federalist Papers":

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America." - James Madison

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constitutents." - James Madison

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison

And we can't discuss the limitations of the Federal Government without including the most Anti-Federal founding father's, Thomas Jefferson, views:

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson

snip

This is some two centuries later and people have different opinions of what they want. Why are the founding fathers more important than modern politicans?

Yes, please, lets tax the weathly until no one is left with the ambition or drive to succeed for the sheer fact that they don't want to lose 90% of their hard work to fund pointless alphabet-soup agencies, departments and other things that the Federal Government has no right to be spending the citizens money on. Because the idea of being punished for having the drive to succeed certainly makes me want to try hard and earn a ton of money :rolleyes:
Where on earth is there a 90% tax rate on anyone? And governmental misuse of tax revenue means you need a new government, not a new tax system.

God forbid the government should live with less, like almost every other American is being forced to do. No, we can't have that, so lets raise taxes, in general.
Depends what the government is doing with the taxes.
This is some two centuries later and people have different opinions of what they want. Why are the founding fathers more important than modern politicans?
Cos the founded a country to get out of paying taxes. This clearly makes their opinion superior to that of everyone else.

To stop Illegal Immigration, we need to look at a a border that is virtually unpassable. The 49th parrel in Korea. What keeps the North Koreans on their side(other than an oppressive dictarorship and brainwashing)? A mile thick mine field running between these two countries. If we took half a mile on each side of our southern border and filled it land mines(apart from the roads) I can garruntee the flow of Illegal immirgants would crossing would slow to almost nothing. If they manage to cross this mile of death, they get rewarded with citizenship.


THIS IS A JOKE. Sort of

Isn't this the part where they make the ocean into a giant cup of tea?

To stop Illegal Immigration, we need to look at a a border that is virtually unpassable. The 49th parrel in Korea. What keeps the North Koreans on their side(other than an oppressive dictarorship and brainwashing)? A mile thick mine field running between these two countries. If we took half a mile on each side of our southern border and filled it land mines(apart from the roads) I can garruntee the flow of Illegal immirgants would crossing would slow to almost nothing. If they manage to cross this mile of death, they get rewarded with citizenship.


THIS IS A JOKE. Sort of

Also, lets put cameras throughout the minefield. Not for security reasons, but so we can sell the tapes of mexicans asploding to FOX for PROFIT!

Also, lets put cameras throughout the minefield. Not for security reasons, but so we can sell the tapes of mexicans asploding to FOX for PROFIT!

Doesn't Rupord Murdoc do that already?

http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11554721


That's pretty nasty. Charging taxes by citizenship rather than residence is unfortunate to start with, considering that you're rather unlikely to be using a whole lot of US taxpayer-funded programs and resources, but making it more difficult to get out of that is really not cool.

What do you reckon? Does this need reforming?

nope, ive been trying all day but i just cant bring myself to feel sorry for rich expats who want to avoid taxes by renouncing citizenship.

nope, ive been trying all day but i just cant bring myself to feel sorry for rich expats who want to avoid taxes by renouncing citizenship.
Well, you see, these people don't live in the US. They don't really use any of the services paid for with US taxes. Instead they use the services paid for by the taxes paid in their country of residence, and generally that includes them as well, because almost all countries charge taxes by residence rather than citizenship.

So regardless of whether they're rich or not, they're being taxed twice and they're being taxed for things they definitely don't use.

Though I have to say that it's interesting that you seem to support this. When people say that taxation is theft, the easiest counter is always "but you use all this stuff taxes pay for, so it isn't". It doesn't apply here, yet you're not changing your tune.

Well, you see, these people don't live in the US. They don't really use any of the services paid for with US taxes. Instead they use the services paid for by the taxes paid in their country of residence, and generally that includes them as well, because almost all countries charge taxes by residence rather than citizenship.

So regardless of whether they're rich or not, they're being taxed twice and they're being taxed for things they definitely don't use.

Though I have to say that it's interesting that you seem to support this. When people say that taxation is theft, the easiest counter is always "but you use all this stuff taxes pay for, so it isn't". It doesn't apply here, yet you're not changing your tune.

taxation isnt theft and no i just cant bring myself to care about the plight of the rich who want to avoid taxes.

if some poor guy was on the losing end of the tax code i might be able to care but rich people can take care of themselves.

taxation isnt theft and no i just cant bring myself to care about the plight of the rich who want to avoid taxes.
When you make a statement there needs to be some justification. And the normal argument for why taxation isn't theft doesn't apply in this case. So why is this particular scheme justified?

if some poor guy was on the losing end of the tax code i might be able to care but rich people can take care of themselves.
If something is right or it is wrong, that doesn't depend on who's doing it or experiencing it.

When you make a statement there needs to be some justification. And the normal argument for why taxation isn't theft doesn't apply in this case. So why is this particular scheme justified?


If something is right or it is wrong, that doesn't depend on who's doing it or experiencing it.

you know why taxation isnt theft and *shrug* as i said, i cant get all worked up over those who want to renounce citizenship for tax purposes. all i can think is "fuck them"

you know why taxation isnt theft and *shrug* as i said, i cant get all worked up over those who want to renounce citizenship for tax purposes. all i can think is "fuck them"

That seems small. They're not all rich, you know. If they have a high enough income they are experiencing this as well. So a 24 year old recent college graduate with $150,000 in student loans could have scored a high paying job in Hong Kong and get hit with this if he tries to renounce his citizenship so he's not double taxed.

you know why taxation isnt theft...
Not in this case.

...and *shrug* as i said, i cant get all worked up over those who want to renounce citizenship for tax purposes. all i can think is "fuck them"
Ahhh, I get it...you're sneakily trying to make an argument against universal suffrage.

That seems small. They're not all rich, you know. If they have a high enough income they are experiencing this as well. So a 24 year old recent college graduate with $150,000 in student loans could have scored a high paying job in Hong Kong and get hit with this if he tries to renounce his citizenship so he's not double taxed.

according to the OP its people with assets over $2mill who have unrealized gains of over $600k. they have to pay capital gains on it...cap gains is 15%


tough luck.

according to the OP its people with assets over $2mill who have unrealized gains of over $600k. they have to pay capital gains on it...cap gains is 15%


tough luck.

It says "or a high income". It doesn't say what that is, so I'll freely speculate something in the $200,000 range.

It's still not as if these people are all making billions of dollars.

I'll show you my country's tax system: nothing. The government survives on voluntary contributions and has a fairly laissez faire approach to immigration. We have some militia bases on the borders, but that's about it. They only exist so that they will be there if we ever are attacked or in some kind of emergency.

It says "or a high income". It doesn't say what that is, so I'll freely speculate something in the $200,000 range.

It's still not as if these people are all making billions of dollars.

those people have to pay tax already. the us govt is making sure that they cant renounce with a bunch of money in investments that never get taxed. so they are taxing it as they go out the door.

if you renounce your US citizenship in hongkong do you have to become chinese?

those people have to pay tax already. the us govt is making sure that they cant renounce with a bunch of money in investments that never get taxed.
Yes, they get taxed. Twice! Once by the government of the country they're staying in, and once by the US. The US government however has no justifiable claim whatsoever on this money. It is not theirs, and it is not theirs to try and force people to give them if they don't want to play that crooked game anymore.

those people have to pay tax already. the us govt is making sure that they cant renounce with a bunch of money in investments that never get taxed. so they are taxing it as they go out the door.

if you renounce your US citizenship in hongkong do you have to become chinese?

So, your basic point is, you think it's fair because they're rich and therefore deserve to be taxed twice?

So, your basic point is, you think it's fair because they're rich and therefore deserve to be taxed twice?

no.

my point is that i dont give a damn about rich people who decide to give up citizenship to save a few bucks on taxes. fuck them.

no.

my point is that i dont give a damn about rich people who decide to give up citizenship to save a few bucks on taxes. fuck them.

Do you find it fair that they are taxed in both the United States and in the country of their residence on income earned in the country of their residence? What rightful claim does the US government have to money that has never been anywhere near the United States?

Do you find it fair that they are taxed in both the United States and in the country of their residence on income earned in the country of their residence? What rightful claim does the US government have to money that has never been anywhere near the United States?

yes i find it fair that citizens living overseas are taxed.

It says "or a high income". It doesn't say what that is, so I'll freely speculate something in the $200,000 range.
"HCE", or "highly compensated employees", is anyone with $100,000 or more before any taxes applied.
That's what is probably meant here as well.



yes i find it fair that citizens living overseas are taxed.
Don't you find it unfair that non-citizens living overseas aren't taxed?

Ashmoria, cover up...you're prejudices are showing.

It's as simple as this. Taxation is not theft because it is the price of living in a society where you benefit from the society and the services and goods provided to you by it. If you are not using these goods and services and not living in this society, then there is not a single rational arguement to be paid over why one should have to pay for them.

If I am a Californian and the taxes there are not to my liking, so I move to Florida, must I continue to pay California's state taxes? I'm not living in that society anymore and thus, shouldn't be required to support it.

If you can give me a rational arguement about why I should be required to, then perhaps I'll change my mind.

If your response is "fuck the rich", then I'll just roll my eyes and giggle in my belief that you believe you're part of some "Prole" society that should be fighting the rich.

Class warfare is treason, darling.

Yes, it's damned annoying to have to file every bloody year in Japan, even though I fall well under the exemption.

This is unbelievable, I wonder if the same goes for Australians?

Put dopn't you still have to pay the Japanese government taxes too?

Ashmoria, cover up...you're prejudices are showing.

It's as simple as this. Taxation is not theft because it is the price of living in a society where you benefit from the society and the services and goods provided to you by it. If you are not using these goods and services and not living in this society, then there is not a single rational arguement to be paid over why one should have to pay for them.

If I am a Californian and the taxes there are not to my liking, so I move to Florida, must I continue to pay California's state taxes? I'm not living in that society anymore and thus, shouldn't be required to support it.

If you can give me a rational arguement about why I should be required to, then perhaps I'll change my mind.

If your response is "fuck the rich", then I'll just roll my eyes and giggle in my belief that you believe you're part of some "Prole" society that should be fighting the rich.

Class warfare is treason, darling.

too bad.

after they renounce they will never again have to pay US taxes. until then, im not going to weep that they have to pay 15% of their accumulated wealth in order to get out cleanly.

Don't you find it unfair that non-citizens living overseas aren't taxed?

uhhhh

no i cant say that i do.

too bad.

after they renounce they will never again have to pay US taxes. until then, im not going to weep that they have to pay 15% of their accumulated wealth in order to get out cleanly.
It's thugish. If you are paying me rent for an apartment you are living in, and decide it's too much and want to move, you'd call me mad if I told you that I don't care where you move to, you have to keep paying your rent. You'd say "but I'm not living in your apartment anymore!" and I'd tell you "too bad". Now that doesn't sound very logical at all, now does it?

Don't foreign US citizens have access to government services in the form of consulate services etc etc. Therefore they're using the services of two governments and hence deserve to be taxed twice.

It's thugish. If you are paying me rent for an apartment you are living in, and decide it's too much and want to move, you'd call me mad if I told you that I don't care where you move to, you have to keep paying your rent. You'd say "but I'm not living in your apartment anymore!" and I'd tell you "too bad". Now that doesn't sound very logical at all, now does it?

that only makes sense if they have to keep paying taxes after they renounce.

that only makes sense if they have to keep paying taxes after they renounce.

That's how things stand presently.

you know why taxation isnt theft and *shrug* as i said, i cant get all worked up over those who want to renounce citizenship for tax purposes. all i can think is "fuck them"

So if your job sent you overseas, you would be happy paying taxes twice?

that only makes sense if they have to keep paying taxes after they renounce.

And that is exactly what is going on.

This is unbelievable, I wonder if the same goes for Australians?
Australians have their own fun issues with taxes.

Put dopn't you still have to pay the Japanese government taxes too?
For the first two years, I was exempt from Japanese taxes do to a tax treaty. The third year my city paid my taxes due to the JET Programme contract, Now, however, yes, I do have to pay all Japanese government taxes.

So, in January I pay my taxes to the Japanese government and then file with the US to state that I make less than $85,000 and therefore am not taxed in the US. However, I have to file each and every year in the US less when I go home, I get picked up at immigration for tax violations.

Don't foreign US citizens have access to government services in the form of consulate services etc etc. Therefore they're using the services of two governments and hence deserve to be taxed twice.
Um... no. Every single time I go to the Embassy for anything, I pay for it. It cost me $150 dollars to register the birth of my son, get his US passport, and request a social security number. If I want a copy of his report of a birth of a US citizen abroad (His birth certificate) not only do I have to pay $50 to the State Department, I have to go back to the embassy and pay $15 for a notary public.

Even calling about how to help my wife immigrate to the US costs me $20 a pop.

So, in January I pay my taxes to the Japanese government and then file with the US to state that I make less than $85,000 and therefore am not taxed in the US. However, I have to file each and every year in the US less when I go home, I get picked up at immigration for tax violations.

Well what a load of rubbish.

*Sings I'm glad to not be an American*

That's how things stand presently.

then thats probably something they should take up with their new governments to stop them having to pay taxes to a country they dont live in and arent a citizen of.

is this a provision of the bill mentioned in the OP? i didnt see it in there

no i cant say that i do.
In which case I still have to ask you a question: why are taxes not theft?

Ashmoria, cover up...you're prejudices are showing.

It's as simple as this. Taxation is not theft because it is the price of living in a society where you benefit from the society and the services and goods provided to you by it. If you are not using these goods and services and not living in this society, then there is not a single rational arguement to be paid over why one should have to pay for them.

If I am a Californian and the taxes there are not to my liking, so I move to Florida, must I continue to pay California's state taxes? I'm not living in that society anymore and thus, shouldn't be required to support it.

If you can give me a rational arguement about why I should be required to, then perhaps I'll change my mind.

If your response is "fuck the rich", then I'll just roll my eyes and giggle in my belief that you believe you're part of some "Prole" society that should be fighting the rich.

Class warfare is treason, darling.Thanks for adding that last part in. I almost agreed with your entire post. Can't let that happen now can we?

It's thugish. If you are paying me rent for an apartment you are living in, and decide it's too much and want to move, you'd call me mad if I told you that I don't care where you move to, you have to keep paying your rent. You'd say "but I'm not living in your apartment anymore!" and I'd tell you "too bad". Now that doesn't sound very logical at all, now does it?

I see this new law for expatriots making certain incomes as pretty much the same as having to pay an extra month's rent after moving.. a pretty common practice...

Interesting article. I'd like to note that given its content, the title of that law is officially awesome. I wouldn't defend the US tax system as it stands, but as a thought:
Though I have to say that it's interesting that you seem to support this. When people say that taxation is theft, the easiest counter is always "but you use all this stuff taxes pay for, so it isn't". It doesn't apply here, yet you're not changing your tune.
In the case of a recent expat who's been able to secure their foreign job on the job of extensive educational opportunity in the US, wouldn't it be reasonable to say that if they immediately renounce citizenship and hence any obligation to the IRS, they have essentially skipped the burden of paying for a) their own education and b) the possibility of future generations of American enjoying the same chances? That is, while the arrangement cited in the article appears very arbitrary, there's a core principle at work: that expatriation can't be used an escape hatch from equal taxation.

Um... no. Every single time I go to the Embassy for anything, I pay for it. It cost me $150 dollars to register the birth of my son, get his US passport, and request a social security number. If I want a copy of his report of a birth of a US citizen abroad (His birth certificate) not only do I have to pay $50 to the State Department, I have to go back to the embassy and pay $15 for a notary public.

Even calling about how to help my wife immigrate to the US costs me $20 a pop.

If you're getting services a non-US citizen wouldn't be able to get then you're getting services. Irrespective of whether you pay solely through taxes or through a combination of taxes and charges.

If you're getting services a non-US citizen wouldn't be able to get then you're getting services. Irrespective of whether you pay solely through taxes or through a combination of taxes and charges.
No, any services I get from the Embassy are due to the fees that I pay, not any taxes so your point that any Americans living abroad get their tax dollars for services from their Embassies is very wrong.

Interesting article. I'd like to note that given its content, the title of that law is officially awesome. I wouldn't defend the US tax system as it stands, but as a thought:

In the case of a recent expat who's been able to secure their foreign job on the job of extensive educational opportunity in the US, wouldn't it be reasonable to say that if they immediately renounce citizenship and hence any obligation to the IRS, they have essentially skipped the burden of paying for a) their own education and b) the possibility of future generations of American enjoying the same chances? That is, while the arrangement cited in the article appears very arbitrary, there's a core principle at work: that expatriation can't be used an escape hatch from equal taxation.
Except that one does not pay for education through taxation to the IRS, but property taxes locally. Higher education of course might have been paid for by Pell Grants, but most come from student loans that MUST be paid back regardless of citizenship status and location.

Except that one does not pay for education through taxation to the IRS, but property taxes locally. Higher education of course might have been paid for by Pell Grants, but most come from student loans that MUST be paid back regardless of citizenship status and location.
Heh, ok, I think we've already exceeded my knowledge of US tax law. But what about something else: the road system, for example. Or even something as abstract as: "the person grew up defended from foreign aggression by the US military and were hence able to pursue a stable education, whereas someone in a torn state would not have been able to do so". My point is that a young expat probably has benefitted from government services in an amount exceeding their cumulative tax payment to that point.

Heh, ok, I think we've already exceeded my knowledge of US tax law. But what about something else: the road system, for example. Or even something as abstract as: "the person grew up defended from foreign aggression by the US military and were hence able to pursue a stable education, whereas someone in a torn state would not have been able to do so". My point is that a young expat probably has benefitted from government services in an amount exceeding their cumulative tax payment to that point.
At which point I would argue that you could then use the same argument against any child and force them to pay taxes. Or the dead, those who die young must therefore have all their estate, whatever there is of it, as well as a lien against their family for this burden. When does it become obviously silly?

The other thing to note though is that fresh out of college kids usually are not pulling down over $200,000 or so per year in a foreign country.

Heh, ok, I think we've already exceeded my knowledge of US tax law. But what about something else: the road system, for example. Or even something as abstract as: "the person grew up defended from foreign aggression by the US military and were hence able to pursue a stable education, whereas someone in a torn state would not have been able to do so". My point is that a young expat probably has benefitted from government services in an amount exceeding their cumulative tax payment to that point.

Roads are paid for by gasoline taxes at the state and federal level. the police are funded by local and state taxes. The military budget is easily covered by the taxes on corporate income. Once again, there is no reason for a federal income tax on every citizen.

Another point: there is a significant disparity in wages and cost-of-living across the US and around the world. In the midwest, you can live quite comfortably on a sum that would barely allow you to scrape by in parts of California or NYC. The income bracket system of federal tax law cannot take regional economic differences into account, much less international situations.

the first 75,000 you make a year is Tax exempt. if you get your employer to give pay part of your income in food and housing allowances it is possible to make over 100k a year. Even easier is to have your employer write up a fake W2 (host country equivalent)saying you only made 75,000 a year and turn that in.

originally in the 1950's when the exemption was set up making 75,000 a year normally meant you were in some way shape or form making money from the US via investments ETC.

the need to raise the exemption amount to say about 250,000 or 500,000.