More Americans give up citizenship as IRS gets aggressive overseas

[The Northerner]

Source: Dow Jones Newswires

The number of American citizens and green-card holders severing their ties with the U.S. soared in the latter part of 2009, amid looming U.S. tax increases and a more aggressive posture by the Internal Revenue Service towards Americans living overseas.

According to public records, just over 500 people worldwide renounced U.S. citizenship or permanent residency in the fourth quarter of 2009, the most recent period for which data are available. That is more people than have cut ties with the U.S. during all of 2007, and more than double the total expatriations in 2008.

An Ohio-born entrepreneur, now based in Switzerland, told Dow Jones he is considering turning in his U.S. passport. Mounting U.S. tax and reporting requirements are making potential business partners hesitate to do business with him, he said.

"I still do dearly love the U.S., and renouncing my citizenship is not something I take lightly. But more and more it is seeming like being part of a dysfunctional family," said the businessman, who asked that his name not be used for fear of retribution.

"The tax itself is only a small part of the issue," the Swiss-based entrepreneur said. "It's the overall regulatory environment."

Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201004050814dowjonesdjonline000053&title=more-americans-give-up-citizenship-as-irs-gets-aggressive-overseas

[onehandle]

1. To renounce your citizenship for money is not loving the U.S.

Don't let the door hit your ass.

[stubtoe]

37. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[dmosh42]

93. Ditto on that! n/t

[kestrel91316]

197. +1000

[Brickbat]

2. Wow, some people really can be bought.

[AngryAmish]

8. Agrees

[wordpix]

16. they love the US when unregulated & when their risk is covered by taxpayers, should it go bad

otherwise, goodbye America.

And don't let the door hit you! Good riddance

[Psephos]

51. But enough about Congress. n/t

[Xipe Totec]

3. Money always sails under a flag of convenience

They stopped being Americans long ago.

[neverforget]

4. Loyal to no one but money.

[wordpix]

17. ain't it the truth

[FailureToCommunicate]

5. "It's the overall regulatory environment." (!!) 'What an outrage! My country wants me to pay

TAXES!'

[FailureToCommunicate]

6. dupe

[Spider Jerusalem]

7. Fun fact for the uninformed who choose to bash those making this decision:

The US is pretty much the only country that taxes on the basis of citizenship and not residence. In most countries, even if you're a citizen, you have no tax liability for foreign income unless you're resident for tax purposes (which usually means spending at least 90 to 180 days a year in your country of citizenship). US citizens are entitled to claim an exemption of $91K; any income above $91K is taxed at the marginal rate. There are allowances for tax credit on foreign income, but only up to the relative maximum amount of US tax you would pay on the same income; differing taxation rates mean that more often than not US citizens abroad pay some percentage of income tax in their country of residence as well as to the IRS.

[MilesColtrane]

12. The top 20% income earners (compared to U.S. households) have to pay some taxes...

back to their country of origin?

Just look at it as a fee to help maintain the place should they ever want to move back.

If that bit of their income they are taxed on over 91k is really more important than their citizenship then...c'est la vie.

[grantcart]

13. Yes you can live overseas the entire year, make all of your money overseas

pay taxes overseas and then have to pay again here.

No other country does it that way.

[Bonobo]

41. You do NOT have to pay state taxes anyway.

Check with an accountant.

[No Elephants]

104. Reply 13 is not about state taxes.

[depakid]

23. Something I've told friends and colleagues abroad for years:

Don't try to talk sense to Americans about certain topics- they're simply not interested in the facts of the matter, and you'll likely get a lot of grief for your trouble.

[liberation]

25. Yeah. Why let knowing the facts get in the way of a good lynching?

Esp. if it involves people of the same class going at each other. That is the American way!

[depakid]

50. It's often times an emotional response

We can see that in frames and narratives that drive political processes, too.

Which is why it's important to listen to researchers who study such things- George Lakoff and Drew Westen being some of the more widely read (or "popular") on the subject(s).

[No Elephants]

208. What would you think of an American posting snotty things about Aussies on an Aussie message board?

[harmonicon]

26. yeah, the ignorance I'm seeing in this thread is really astounding.

A friend of mine took a massive tax hit in the US a few years ago after setting up his own country overseas (where he'd been living and working for a number of years already). It's just more of the ignorance that people around here have about the rest of the world; for no logical reason whatsoever should someone have to pay taxes to a country that played no role in them earning the money they are being taxed on. If this was framed in terms of state income taxes people in the US would be outraged, but the "USA! USA!" spirit, even on DU, means that common sense goes out the door. If someone is born in California but works in Ohio should they have to pay state tax in California for the job they work in Ohio? Of course not.

[Bonobo]

43. No different than a bunch of Freepers. nt

[fascisthunter]

45. to tell you the truth, I could care less if US citizens making that much get taxed

even if they make it in another country. They are making pretty good money, here's a:

:nopity:

[harmonicon]

85. people who aren't making a lot of money also suffer double-taxation (nt)

[fascisthunter]

89. I thought more about this issue last night

and to tell you the truth, I'm a bit torn, but now siding with the idea of their being a better solution. Sorry for the arrogance last night...

[lonestarnot]

95. so k

:pals:

[mbperrin]

127. The country that played no role?

They weren't educated in this country? They didn't learn their business habits of mind here? They were not raised with the American exceptionalism that allows the mind to freely believe that success can come in spite of obstacles?

Yes, the country played a role. That role costs money. Pay it. Otherwise, admit that you're a freeloader, and you want to prosper from what others have given you, but you want to give nothing back.

[harmonicon]

129. give me a break

What has the US given me? I went to state-funded public school. I then went to private universities, and now I'm in the UK at a public university. As for my friend, he went to a few years of community college and then moved to Europe. That's where he has worked most of his adult life. How am I - and my many US citizen friends living overseas - freeloading? Please tell me, oh great sage.

[mbperrin]

137. Well, straight from your profile:

I'm really from Michigan, where I'm a registered vote... just so you know. I only live in the UK, I'm not from here.


Putting in this disclaimer means that you obviously feel the need to stress your connection with the US. You're registered to vote, so you get a say in how MY tax money is spent. This is all voluntary disclosure on your part, so you obviously feel that it is of value.

Receiving value without paying is theft. You admit you receive value, went to pains to include it in your profile, so if you are unwilling to pay for it, that makes you a thief.

Sage ain't that great, after all. I prefer the prickly pear. Obviously. :)

[harmonicon]

138. I put that in my profile to give context to my posts

I have a vested interested in MY COUNTRY, and I actively vote in state and national elections. I don't see this as receiving some value, but as my duty as a citizen (this citizenship is my constitutionally given birthright). Again, I ask you what value I have received from being born in the US. What? I've had my tax dollars go to starting illegal wars where innocent people were slaughtered. I've paid taxes to support a government that was - and still is, but less so - hated around the world, and for good reason. Is that the value I've received? You may think that being born in the US is theft, but it's just a fact. That anyone and everyone born in the US is a citizen may be a fact that you don't like, but there's no arguing with it. You may not give a shit about the constitution, but I sure as hell do.

[mbperrin]

141. Being born is not theft. Having an asset that you feel the need

to include in your personal profile and not paying for it is theft, plain and simple.

Insofar as voting and not getting your way, well, join the club. Nowhere in that beloved Constitution is it guaranteed that your vote will be the winning policy. You'll still have to pay taxes, just like the rest of us voting losers.

You're not paying any tax to the US anyway, unless you're making more than $91,000 a year, and then only on the overage, and then only if you don't have offsets.

Not supporting YOUR country (as you proclaim) is like all those deadbeat dads who "love" their kids, but leave it to me to support them with food stamps, TANF, free school lunches and more, because they won't pay child support. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to help bring up children, whether they're my DNA relatives or not, but blowhards sicken me.

The value you receive is the one YOU claim - voting. Rights without responsibilities is just brattism.

Please disclose whether you actually paid any taxes to the US while living in the UK, please, or is your objection just theoretical?

Seems a bit unlikely to me that a university student is earning in excess of $91k a year, but what the heck do I know? I earned 3 degrees and lived like a student while doing so....

[harmonicon]

145. do you not get that capitalism isn't some universal truth?

You are using analogies derived from a capitalist economic system to argue your bigotry. The fact that I am a citizen of the united states and a legally registered Michigan voter is not an "asset", it is a legal and political fact.

My personal economic situation is of no concern to you or anyone else on this board.

[mbperrin]

148. So you post being a voter to "provide context" but won't answer a

simple question about paying taxes as an ex-pat on a thread that is about paying taxes as an ex-pat.

That's my answer, and now, good day to you. I never continue a conversation with someone who will not be honest in that conversation.

Have a pleasant day and a wonderful hereafter.

[wickerwoman]

165. You're living overseas in the UK? Who's the first person you would call if you were arrested?

Where would you go if there was civil unrest and your life was threatened? Who would pay to evacuate you?

As a US citizen living in a foreign country, you have the potential to incur substantial expenses for your legal protection, physical security and extraction in the event of an emergency. The US is obligated to provide those protections for its citizens as well as a number of other services such as passport renewal, absentee ballots, citizenship services if you marry someone from the other country or have children there, etc.

Thus, even though you may not at this point be using any of those services, the US still has to pay money to make them available to you should you need them. So you can't really argue that you get "no benefits" from your citizenship status when you live overseas. You get the security of knowing that when the shit hits the fan, you can walk away with your life unlike all the poor bastards who don't have US citizenship.

Yes, citizenship is your "birth right". But taking advantage of services provided by the US government for citizens living overseas costs money (just like education, police services, clean water and all the other things you pay taxes for and which are also your "right"). And you should pay taxes to support those services. I even think it's quite reasonable that the first $91K is exempt.

If you don't want to support those services, give up your citizenship.

[harmonicon]

166. sure, I'll just "give up my citizenship" - no problem

I'll be the first person to agree that the whole idea of citizenship is antiquated and ethically unsound, but unfortunately the world doesn't work that way.

As for your suggested dooms-day scenarios, every single other country provides such services without requiring double-taxation, so the suggestion that they are somehow supported by these exploitative tax dollars is laughable. If you really want to make that argument, do you think foreigners living in the US shouldn't pay taxes, because they can't benefit from those services? For that matter, why don't you demand to not be taxed some percentage of what you pay the federal government, because it's going to these things that you don't use.

Yours is a losing argument, but I imagine that you'll find a lot of sympathy for it one some tea-bagger message board or free republic.

[wickerwoman]

167. Different countries have different tax structures.

How other countries choose to pay for the services offered to their citizens isn't really that relevant.

You claimed that you get "no benefit" from your status as a US citizen living abroad. I showed that you do. And that benefit has a price tag which somebody needs to pay. Who do you think does pay to maintain embassies and consulates? Who pays the salaries of the tens of thousands of people who work in them? Who pays for legal representation for poor Americans arrested overseas? Who pays for planes to extract Americans from untenable situations in places like Haiti, Iran or Rwanda? They are paid for with tax dollars, including taxes collected from Americans living overseas. Do you really think that Americans living overseas who are the primary beneficiaries of these services have absolutely no obligation to contribute taxes towards them?

Foreigners living in the US benefit from US services such as roads, schools, fire/police, etc. So obviously they should pay taxes in the US. Never claimed they shouldn't. But they also benefit from their native country's services including embassies, consulates, legal protection, etc. And if that country chooses to tax them in exchange for those benefits, I believe they have a right to do so.

And I never argued anything about not being taxed for services you don't use. I argued that you should pay taxes for services you either use or potentially will need to use. If the US has an obligation to provide services, citizens have an obligation to pay for them (whether they use them or not (e.g. schools) and whether they agree with them or not (e.g. the military)).

I'll let the teabagger ad hominem attack slide since you've obviously misunderstood my argument but you might want to think about which political party likes to ignore or downplay the benefits that they do receive and claim that they shouldn't have to pay taxes in order to support them.

[harmonicon]

182. No, I didn't misunderstand your argument.

Your "American, love it or leave it" crap is not different than what tea-baggers spew at those who would like the US to become the first-world country that it once was. How does it feel to be on their side of the fence? The US is the only country that requires double taxation. Do you really think that the US has a good tax structure and tax policy? You think the US has it better figured our than the rest of the world? If so, you're dreaming.

[wickerwoman]

184. I didn't say "love it or leave it"

I said "if you want to enjoy the benefits of being a US citizen, you need to pay for those benefits. If you do not want to pay for them, you need to renounce them."

Not at all the same thing.

The argument isn't about the whole US tax structure. It's about the ethical right of a nation to ask for payment for services provided to citizens even when they do not live and work within it's borders. I believe they should have that right. You believe they shouldn't. There's no need to get nasty or personal about it.

If I thought the US had it figured out better than the rest of the world, I would live there. I don't and I haven't for most of my adult life. But I've retained my citizenship because I would like to continue to participate in the political process for my family's sake and because I want to keep my options open. And I would be happy to pay taxes on income over $91K in order to keep certain services and options available to me.

[harmonicon]

192. as has been said before on here: THERE IS NOT CITIZENSHIP TAX!!

To have one would be unconstitutional, and that seems to be what you are suggesting is ok. It's not ok - it's forbidden in the constitution. By your logic, should everyone who doesn't like the tax codes renounce their citizenship? If the alternative minimum tax was hurting a family, instead of campaigning to change it, should they just shut up and renounce their citizenship because they obviously don't want the "services" they pay for?

This isn't only about people making over 91k a year (which, by the way, wouldn't be much in the UK - some years that would be £45k, taxed first at about 30% and then taxed again by the US!), but also about the fact that this is simply an ethically unsound practice. It is also about letting the government snoop in your bank accounts and demand payment with no right or evidence.

As someone else on here said, just because the US has a bully pulpit doesn't make things that it does right. By that logic, waging illegal wars of aggression are within the rights of the government.

[girl gone mad]

170. There is no tax on citizenship..

and in fact, such a tax has been declared unconstitutional. We tax income.

The services to which you refer are primarily provided for American tourists in foreign countries, tourists who earn income and pay income tax within the US. The fact that a few Americans earning income overseas might benefit from these services is of little consequence.

We provide services to non-tax-paying citizens, tourists, and immigrants every day and we do not seek to be directly compensated via taxation.

Demanding someone give up their citizenship because they oppose an arbitrary tax on income they earn overseas is patently goofy.

[No Elephants]

207. You seem to be confusing American exceptionalism with the "power of positive thinking."

American exceptionalism is pretty much an arrogant, jingoistic nationalism, bordering on the grandiosity of the seriously delusional.

Not every U.S. citizen was educated in the U.S. either. Presumably, if they were, their parents' income and real estate taxes were paying for their education, or for private school tuition plus the education of kids attending public school.

(By this post, I'm not saying people living abroad should or should not pay taxes.)

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

108. I know. It's totally ridiculous.

Of course, since none of the people responding in this thread have actually lived overseas and endured this stupidity, they're making some pretty stupid comments.

[Democat]

119. Some posting on this thread think anyone making $50k a year should be tarred & feathered.

No use arguing with the "100% taxation for anyone making over $100k" crowd.

[superduperfarleft]

122. What he said.

When I relocate to Canada, I've given some thought to renouncing simply so I won't have the hassle of having to file taxes with the IRS every year. I'll probably keep my citizenship, just to make visiting my family in the US easier, but it's not the black-and-white situation that DUers are making it out to be, as usual.

[mbperrin]

126. And knowing this, chose to go overseas anyway, and are now amazed

that the rules will be enforced.

"Do what all the other countries are doing, son. If they're jumping off a bridge, please join them."

Amazing how many people do not want to live with the consequences of their own personal decisions, isn't it?

[girl gone mad]

168. Correct,

and I know one who has renounced his citizenship to get away from burdensome student debt alongside the nightmarish taxation issues. He really had little choice as a physician practicing emergency field medicine in devastated areas. His taxes were quite burdensome, as much because of the amount of time he had to waste trying to meet all of the proper, and often indecipherable, regulatory requirements. I think he made the right choice and I know he is doing a lot of good in this world. I hope he will be better off free from the chains of seemingly endless bureaucracy and insurmountable debts. It's sad that people here would shame this hero due to their utter ignorance of the true circumstances behind these tough decisions.

[mainer]

194. You live overseas, get no US benefits, yet have to pay US taxes

So yeah, I get it. Especially if you're living in Europe where all your health care is taken care of .. unlike in the US.

The US is a dysfunctional family in so many ways.

[sendero]

211. Fine if they don't live here..

.. they don't need to be citizens anyway. Good fucking riddance.

[high density]

9. So we should lower taxes to zero so that a few dozen wealthy businesspeople abroad are happy

Excuse my French, but fuck that!

[Spider Jerusalem]

33. There are about six million American citizens living abroad.

And you know, it would make more sense to adopt the practice of taxation by residence rather than citizenship that every other country has. British citizens living in France and earning all of their income in France don't pay British income tax on their earnings; Australians living in Malaysia don't pay Australian tax on their earnings; why should an American pay US taxes on income earned abroad while resident in another country? Especially when already paying taxes in his or her country of residence?

[leftrightwingnut]

52. If what you say about the rest of the world is true, I have to agree with you.

And now that you mention it, I think the city where I was born must expect a boat-load of back taxes by now! And I haven't lived there for many, many years.
:eyes:

I have no problem though with cracking down on U.S. residents with foreign income. They should pay.

[liberation]

72. Huh?

You mean people living in the US making a foreign income, or Americans overseas making a foreign income.

Again, why would the US federal gov have the right to tax foreign income earned in a foreign land?

[high density]

56. Well the article talks about 500 people renouncing their citizenship in Q4 2009

And we have no clue whether or not taxes played a role in that. The article infers that it played a role with no data to back up its claims other than some rich people whining about it.

That means the other 99.999% of Americans living abroad must have figured out that they'd still be paying taxes when they moved abroad and acted accordingly. If people want to remain a citizen of the US they can pay for that privilege or they can become a citizen of another country.

[Spider Jerusalem]

57. Or the other 99.9 percent weren't worth going after yet. perhaps.

And citizenship is indentured servitude now? Interesting idea you have about that. Especially considering that no other country taxes its citizens on the basis of citizenship. Also, American citizenship is not a privilege; it's a right conferred by birth within the US or its territories.

[high density]

59. America often doesn't seem to care what other countries do

So I don't see that as a valid argument. People are free to renounce their citizenship.

[Spider Jerusalem]

61. Not as free as you'd think.

Renunciation of US citizenship is not a straightforward matter, nor is it easy (and the IRS will hold you liable in most cases anyway if they suspect taxation is a reason for renunciation). And 'America doesn't need to care about what the rest of the world does!' is a stupendously brain-dead argument (which makes your user name very appropriate).

[high density]

68. Sure it's not easy

Neither is moving abroad. It's not cheap either. So these people seem to be accustomed to doing stuff that isn't easy or cheap. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree since the discussion has now devolved into talking about my username.

[izquierdista]

102. Cheaper than you think

All you have to do is get up and go. The attitudes on this thread are just another indication of an empire in decline. Oh well, the USA I grew up in was a pretty good place -- not any more.

[girl gone mad]

173. It's rather depressing, isn't it?

Complete insanity to see people on a progressive message board arguing in favor of a citizenship tax (!).

And the idea that anyone who works overseas must be rich... wtf? Or that we shouldn't care that other countries make it easy for their citizens to work abroad while we set up impediments to our citizens earning foreign income. It's an anti-competitive system which only screws the American worker.

[harmonicon]

87. I think you hit the nail on the head there

Citizenship now IS indentured servitude. This is the problem I have with the new healthcare legislation, with tax policy (not tax rates), and with what is expected of me in terms of attitude on a supposedly liberal site.

[girl gone mad]

171. Again, a citizenship tax is unconstitutional.

We do not tax people for simply being citizens of this country. At the federal level, we tax income.

The ignorance on display in this thread is somewhat astounding.

[No Elephants]

206. There is no citizenship tax. If they were making zero to 90K, they'd owe no U.S. tax, yet

they would be citizens, including having the right to vote.

This is a tax on the income of high income folks. They are just not getting a pass for living overseas. While that may not be consistent with the laws of other nations, it's an income tax matter, not a civil rights matter. That other countries have different laws does not raise an income tax to the level of a claim under the U.S. Constitution.

[Spider Jerusalem]

209. Yes, it's a citizenship tax

because it's a tax on income earned entirely in another country who is legally resident for tax purposes in another country.

Also, US$90K in a lot of the rest of the world is less equivalently, thanks to exchange rates, and doesn't go as far thanks to cost of living; in the UK the exchange rate over the past few years has fluctuated at US$1.50-$2.00=£1; unleaded is on average the equivalent of US$7-8 a gallon, and there's VAT on most goods except newspapers and magazines, basic groceries, and children's clothing at 17.5%. Oh, and housing is at a premium; a 2 bedroom house in a reasonably decent neighbourhood in most cities will set you back US$250K-500K (and a third again to twice as much if you're in London). And if one is in Western Europe, apart from a few tax havens like Switzerland, one is paying more in income tax than one would in the US already (yet you apparently think double taxing income over exemption limits is just fine).

[aquart]

80. And every one of them can vote in our elections.

When a Greek friend needs to vote in a Greek election, she has to get on a plane and vote in Greece. We let our citizens mail it in.

If that isn't worth the money, then good riddance. I don't want them voting in our elections.

[Spider Jerusalem]

81. Stupid argument

Most countries allow citizens living abroad to vote in national elections by post or proxy. The UK for one. Even if they aren't UK-resident for tax purposes. Apparently you're yet another who seems to think citizenship is more a privilege than a birthright. (Which is extremely progressive of you, by the way.)

[harmonicon]

86. enjoy your tea-party overlords

Part of why Obama is in office is because US citizens living abroad, such as myself, voted for him.

[atreides1]

112. What about those of us who live in the US

I would say that we provided the larger portion of votes that he received.

[Spider Jerusalem]

115. So you're prepared to write off the votes of over four million eligible overseas voters?

[lonestarnot]

88. He/she shouldn't. Isn't that the point. Move out make your money in another country, pay your

taxes there. Stay there don't come back. He/she is no longer an American anyway, so give up the fucking citizenship. Get out and stay the fuck out. These people are not making minimum wage. :eyes: Either pay U.S. taxes for citizenry or you are not an American. It's an easy concept. Why should American labor/tax payers provide for a special interest group of 6 million? Why should they have the benefit as American in paper and name only?

[harmonicon]

90. because it's in the constitution, that's why

For someone who wants to get on a high horse about supporting America, you don't seem to give a damn shit about the country's laws or the principles it was founded upon. What you are suggesting would take us down a path where only tax-paying land-owners have the right to vote. What you suggest I find to be politically disturbing, and personally a little sickening. One of the things that I love most about America is the fact that being born there automatically makes one a citizen - it doesn't matter what language you speak, what class you are a part of, where your parents came from, what religion you are, etc. The fact that you would seek to change that is shocking.

[lonestarnot]

96. wa wa wa.

You show me in the Constitution where paying taxes is unamerican. Thank you. You are off topic.

[harmonicon]

97. this is what you said: "He/she is no longer an American anyway", and it's bullshit.

What makes "an American" for you? This is the same sort of argument that teabaggers and birthers use to vilify people. Those are the people you are aligning yourself with by making such comments. I am just as much an American as you are, thank you very much. The difference is that I'm willing to accept others as American despite what our differences may be, and seek to have an environment which encourages that, where as you seek to destroy it.

[mbperrin]

128. Because they owe their education and skills to this country, and the

schools and businesses that trained them. That infrastructure costs money, still costs money. Not paying exhausts the infrastructure, which we are seeing even now as a common effect of decades of monetarily successful people pay nothing back in.

No different than me stealing lawn equipment from Home Depot, creating a successful business, and then being indignant when they find me and bill me for that equipment. Caught thieves always squawk.

And the solution is easy - renounce the country you don't care about, don't want to live in, don't want to help support. Why in the world would you hesitate? Go live with all the superior folks.

[girl gone mad]

175. What a bogus argument.

President Obama was educated largely overseas. Should he be paying foreign taxes because of that?

[Mojorabbit]

105. Are they all wealthy business people?

Hubby and I were thinking of retiring to Ireland and I find the subject very interesting.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

109. I agree with the poster upthread.

Let's say you're born in Ohio and move to Colorado, and work in Colorado. Should Ohio be able to tax that income as well as Colorado? Because that's effectively what's happening here.

[christx30]

174. You know...

There are degrees between a 90% marginal rate and zero taxes. If a person sees the writing on the wall that he's going to get hammered by taxes and regulation and decides that he would be better off where he is, maybe we should look at the laws that he's not liking. You might think he needs to pay a 90 to 100% rate, but if he's able to leave, you're not going to get a thing.
If Austin, Texas decided to institute a city tax and jack up the rates, I'd probably move out of the city limits. You can't demand a whole lot from people and expect them to slobber and thank you. Sometimes people are just going to flip you off and walk away.
It's human nature to want to keep as much of the fruit of your labor as possible.
I don't know how much you make, but would you be ok with doubling your taxes?
I guess what I'm saying is "be reasonable".

[old mark]

10. Goodbye, have a nice time. Hope you enjoy where ever it may be you wind up

that has fewer regulations and lower taxes on the very rich.

(We won't miss you at all.)

mark

[whoneedstickets]

11. Translation: I don't need the vote to get what I want politically..

..and I'm so rich I don't have to worry about employment law.

[GodlessBiker]

14. These people are probably republic voters anyway.

[mainer]

195. Nope. Except for military, most overseas US residents are Dems

That's my understanding from the last election

[wordpix]

15. how about Mitt Romney who had a shell org going in the Caribbean?

Is he going to be looked at?

[wordpix]

156. here are some nice articles about Mitt

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/17/at_times_romneys_bain_capital_profited

snip: A side light of that was Bain Capital, which today has assets of about $60 billion—that’s their—the number that they officially say—and about a third of that comes from these offshore operations that Romney set up when he was still there, in particular, companies that are set up—really, they’re just mail drops, they’re mailboxes; they don’t have any staff, they don’t have any operations. The one on Grand Cayman Island is a Post Office Box 60D, I think, on Grand Cayman Island, and the ones in Bermuda are also at a lawyer’s office. But they’ve got them in other places as well. And they bring in somewhere above $25 billion a year.

And again, it’s—these are companies—these are operations set up through various systems. They’re blocker corporations. They are investment—or rather, equity groups that are set up to attract, for the large part, foreign capital. And the reason these are set up overseas is so that foreign investors in these private companies can avoid paying US taxes. Mitt Romney and his colleagues don’t get that advantage. So it’s not like they are avoiding taxes through this. It’s simply—what happens is, they’re helping other people avoid paying US taxes, and as a result they make enormous profits.

snip :eyes:

Drogin says Mitt's role in the tax avoidance is not illegal; however, if he's helping others do it to make his "enormous profits," it seems he's an accomplice to a crime. :puke: But I'm no lawyer.

[aikoaiko]

18. Its really not that much different from DUers who said they are leaving or want to leave the

country because they don't like what they are seeing.

[No Elephants]

204. False equivalency much? One is based principle, the other on cash.

I've never said I wanted to leave the country, but I sure see the difference betweein doing something because you believe in it with all your heart and doing something you supposedly oppose with all your heart so you'll have some extra disposable cash.

[proteus_lives]

19. Fuck'em.

Better off without.

[christx30]

28. Until the deficit gets even higher

and we can't pay for health care because all of the money is over seas, and we have to raise taxes on the lower-middle class and the poor to make up the difference.
It's not like the IRS can go after a non-citizen that is living in a foreign country and has no investments here.

[depakid]

44. Want to bring in $100+ billion a year AND discourage irresponsible and destructive market behavior?

Bob Herbert at the NY Times told us all how last year (sourcing Dean Baker):

At some point, however, someone is going to have to talk about raising revenue. The dreaded T-word is going to come up: taxes.

Well, there’s a good idea floating around that takes its cue from the legendary Willie Sutton. Why not go where the money is?

The economist Dean Baker is a strong advocate of a financial transactions tax. This would impose a small fee — ranging up to, say, 0.25 percent — on the sale or transfer of stocks, bonds and other financial assets, including the seemingly endless variety of exotic financial instruments that have been in the news so much lately.

According to Mr. Baker, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, the fees would raise a ton of money, perhaps $100 billion or more annually — money that the government sorely needs.

But there’s another intriguing element to the proposal. While the fees would be a trivial expense for what the general public tends to think of as ordinary traders — people investing in stocks, bonds or other assets for some reasonable period of time — they would amount to a much heavier lift for speculators, the folks who bring a manic quality to the markets, who treat it like a casino.

“It raises money in a way that comes primarily at the expense of speculation,” said Mr. Baker. “The fees would be a considerable expense for someone who is buying futures, or a stock, or any asset at 2 o’clock and then selling it at 3. The more you trade, the more you pay.

“For the typical person holding stock, who is planning to hold it for a long period of time, paying the quarter of one percent on a trade is just not that big a deal.”

The fees, though small, could amount to a big deal for speculators because in addition to the volume of their trades they often make their money on very small margins. Someone who buys an asset and then sells it an hour later at a one percent appreciation might feel quite pleased. He or she would be less pleased at having to pay a quarter-percent fee to purchase the asset in the first place and then another quarter percent to sell it.

This, according to Mr. Baker, is part of the beauty of the transfer tax; it tends to curb at least some speculation. “It’s a very progressive tax,” he said, “that discourages nonproductive activity.”

[quakerboy]

159. its OT

but fuck yeah. That discussion would be a far better use of our time. But apparently its more fun to have a shit on the expats thread, mainly bare of facts. Perhaps it is the raw envy coming through.

[sendero]

212. Make me laugh..

... these assholes are not paying any taxes anyway. Fuck them. And fuck dumbass libertarian economics, the policies of masochists that like biting pillows.

[Blue_Tires]

20. fuck 'em

If all citizenship means to you is mere tax status, then GO and don't come back...Go play with your millions while the rest of us do something meaningful with our lives...

That's what gets me about these people...Even before now, the jerkoff was almost certainly getting away paying about FIVE percent of his owed taxes thanks to Byzantine accounting, creative attorneys and lax enforcement...It seems like the folks who complain the most about high tax rates are the same people who never pay them to begin with...

[Plucketeer]

22. I second your assessment

It's only those who game the system that cry when the rules are changed! Ta-Ta!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

62. I don't know, maybe Spider Jerusalem has a point.

I knew for a while the US had that extraterritorial tax thing. I always thought it was a pretty assholish thing to do.

[Blue_Tires]

113. I see the point...It's just that the law has been in place for awhile

and no one seemed to care until it was announced that there would be stronger enforcement...

[depakid]

21. Easy to go after the little guys- who aren't even using the services

Takes courage and fortitude to progressively tax Wall Street speculators and the über wealthy in one's own nation.

Hence, the tax on health benefits that drives everyone toward junk insurance- as opposed to a surcharge on the wealthiest to pay for broader coverage.

Or the refusal to enact a financial transactions and Tobin tax- despite pleas from responsible economists as to the win/win nature of such a policy.

[liberation]

29. Indeed...

My dad has been living overseas for decades, and he hasn't set foot in the USA for the better part of this century and owns no property or investments state wide. And yet he has to pay taxes, with no value proposition whatsoever.

Apparently, some of the posters in this forum seem to be of the opinion that only can be an American so long as they are willing to pay a yearly fee for the privilege. So is that it? That is all there is to American citizenship: pay to play? And we don't even get that much in return for the privilege of our taxes: a mighty military, but crumbling infrastructure, no healthcare, and police which basically just serves as an enforcer of corporate decrees.

Now, I understand the case for taxation as the price of having to live in a society. But overseas expats fall under a fairly iffy "representation" category, which would make their taxation an exercise of "taxation without much in terms of representation" which I seem to recall was the main reason why we decided to start all that hoopla with the English crown. Also, there is the point that for most paperwork overseas the US embassies request all sorts of fee, so it is not as if American citizens living overseas are getting that much of a value added on their taxes.

Oh, well.

[AlbertCat]

32. "taxation without much in terms of representation"

What's stopping him from voting for reps in the US government? Can't he lick a stamp?

[liberation]

38. In this case, I don't think it is an issue with his mailing capabilities...

... as much as it has to do with what you understand for "representation."

Last I checked there were no "real" seats in congress or senate for the reps of non-resident expats, are there?

[karynnj]

49. They vote out of the state that they came from.

Why do you think that at least Kerry and Obama had significant ex-pat operations to get those votes.

[liberation]

71. Only if you remain a resident of that state...

... which is why you have to pay taxes. Chicken and egg issue. The state and fed want their money first, and then they will figure out how to represent you, as I said it is a very iffy "representation."

Some states assume that you will eventually return as to not allow you to relinquish residence, regardless of how much time you have spent abroad and how much you tell them that you have no intention to return, as the reason for their continual taxation.


As I said, I don't think it would be such an issue if it weren't for the fact that American corporations can find all sorts of loopholes to not pay taxes by moving operations overseas. While American citizens who for whatever reason happen to be living overseas, have to be hunted down.

[girl gone mad]

177. So you would be in favor of a poll tax, then?

Americans earning income overseas don't have to pay taxes as long as they don't vote.. or something like that?

[AlbertCat]

34. And yet he has to pay taxes,

And Exxon and the Church of Scientology don't.

Huh!

[suffragette]

158. This is the larger point, isn't it

People buy into the "Yeah, go get 'em" mentality when a face has been placed on the designated "culprit." It's similar to taxing the so-called "Cadillac plans" (actually just decent health plans won through unions appropriate bargaining) or pitting someone who earns slightly more against someone who earns slightly less. It personalizes the issue and pits people in similar situations who are actually closer to being alike and allies against each other.

And they can publicize a couple high profile situations of this and make it seem like something major is being done to correct what they're describing as an unfair situation.

But these are pennies compared to what you noted in your post and to corporations taking advantage of tax laws to offshore and outsource jobs and industries when the only motive to do so is to increase CEO's profits.

This made me remember this story from awhile back:
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2008/03/06/top_iraq_contractor_skirts_us_taxes_offshore/
Top Iraq contractor skirts US taxes offshore
Shell companies in Cayman Islands allow KBR to avoid Medicare, Social Security deductions

By Farah Stockman
Globe Staff / March 6, 2008
CAYMAN ISLANDS - Kellogg Brown & Root, the nation's top Iraq war contractor and until last year a subsidiary of Halliburton Corp., has avoided paying hundreds of millions of dollars in federal Medicare and Social Security taxes by hiring workers through shell companies based in this tropical tax haven.

More than 21,000 people working for KBR in Iraq - including about 10,500 Americans - are listed as employees of two companies that exist in a computer file on the fourth floor of a building on a palm-studded boulevard here in the Caribbean. Neither company has an office or phone number in the Cayman Islands.

The Defense Department has known since at least 2004 that KBR was avoiding taxes by declaring its American workers as employees of Cayman Islands shell companies, and officials said the move allowed KBR to perform the work more cheaply, saving Defense dollars.

But the use of the loophole results in a significantly greater loss of revenue to the government as a whole, particularly to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. And the creation of shell companies in places such as the Cayman Islands to avoid taxes has long been attacked by members of Congress.


That's where the energy should be focused, on closing the loopholes for these corporations.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

24. On the surface the overseas banking crackdown seems like a good idea

But I suspect most of those targeted will be the children of American expatriates with minimal ties to the United States financial or otherwise who have never bothered to file a tax return as opposed to major league tax evaders.

[cstanleytech]

27. OMG, 500 people!!! Its the end do you hear me, the end!!!!!

:tinfoilhat:

[pnorman]

30. Let them depart in peace, and with no rancor.

(I'm tempted to add: "With the clothes on their backs, and what possessions they can carry with both hands, and with a maximum of $20,000 per family member in financial instruments." But let's not impede their departure, since that would strike at what's so dear to their souls.)

But if they should change their minds and decide to return, let it be on a Quota System --- the sort that had been historically reserved for "Mediterranean and East Europe people". Wouldn't it be ironic if they should try to reenter as "wetbacks", and end up in the sights of a Trigger-happy Teabagger?

[girl gone mad]

178. What the heck??????

Now we've decided to take away people's assets valued over 20K simply because they choose to live and work in a foreign country?

This thread is pure insanity.

[AlbertCat]

31. "It's the overall regulatory environment."

Baloney!

It's he just doesn't want to pay his taxes. That's the American way! TOO MUCH regulation is not a problem.

[daleo]

35. Some tax seems fair

After all, they still get some benefits from U.S. citizenship oversees - consulate services, passport, and a safe haven if things don't work out where they are.

I suppose it is a question of what that is worth to people.

[liberation]

42. If those services were really free, sure.

However, have you tried to fill any paperwork with an American consulate/embassy. Even for citizens they have fees for every piece of paperwork you fill, literally.

However, we can apply the same logic. Them out-of-state visitors should pay a tax if they intend to visit or step foot in another state, heck why stop at that level. If out of towners intend on using my precious local back roads, beaches, etc. they should pay municipal taxes too! ;-)

Now, if some asshole is living overseas because they do not want to pay taxes on income earned in the states, by all means they should be taxed. But when we are talking about normal US expats who happened to live overseas for whatever reason, and have no income earned in the states... it seems ridiculous to tax them IMHO.

It seems ridiculous to me that the IRS is putting pressure on average citizens, while they look the other way when US corporations are evading a shitload of taxes by setting tax havens overseas. The amount of revenue lost is far more significant from that...

[Abq_Sarah]

48. It's easier to collect from the individual citizen

Particularly since corporations pass on their taxes to consumers anyway.

[aquart]

82. Because our states are not nations.

We put special bits in our constitution to make sure of it.

Now NY has a problem with NJ and CT. People earning here and paying state taxes where they live. We had a commuter tax for a while. Now they just grab our money and run back to their gated communities.

Not impressed with your reasoning. But if there's a country with laws they like better, GO FOR IT! Be their citizens.

And I'm so impressed that you even want embassy services to be free for you. Well, guess what? A nation that refuses to tax the rich appropriately ends up raising the fees on every single government service.
So thanks a lot for your greed.

[liberation]

106. Wow, runaway passive aggressiveness coupled with ignorance of the basic facts...

... with a good dose of intellectual dishonesty to tie it all together. Yeah, like I should be ever so worried that I am not "impressing" some person who is under the impression that citizenship is a privilege and not a basic right.


My dad, happens to love my mum very much. And my mum happens to come from a different country and never cared much about living here, but she compromised and lived here for a few years to allow her children to experience her husband's culture. My dad, then was foolish enough to compromise with my mother and return to live where she feels comfortable, which happens to be her homeland. Not that it was a real compromise since my dad loves it there, great food, everyone knows him, he is fully integrated, and he happens to be an unabashed socialist (which is viewed as a very bad thing here), he also enjoys the culture in the old world and he is a life long music and art geek.... so he is in his own private "Disneyland."

Oh, and he served in the armed forces. Just like my grandpa did, who after duking it out with the nazis and kicking all sort of fascist ass... he stupidly managed to fall in love with another foreign lady, my grandma. So who knows... maybe my dad was predisposed to fall in love with someone who reminded him of his mum. Yeah, a bunch of greedy bastards there. You are right, my old man should pay a hefty fee every year to retain his citizenship. After all he and my grandpa only served and got shot at defending this country, so it is not like they have done much to earn that blue passport. The gall of my father to be educated and open minded enough to be an American and yet be able to live in and adapt to a foreign land. Right? Now if I can figure out where he stashed all that money he is supposed to have as a greedy rich bastard (we know only rich greedy rich evil bastards can even think of living overseas, right?).... that would have made my life soooo much easier, having to work so hard to pay for everything I own is really not that much fun.

Funny, this thread reminds me exactly why my old man does not come to visit that often ever since his dad passed away. I don't think he misses that much some of the monumental ignorant selfish pricks that seem to roam so freely in this great nation of ours. Not that there are no equally monumental ignorant selfish pricks elsewhere. But I assume the access to better food and wine must make it more bearable for my old man.

[mbperrin]

130. The Constitution prohibits tariffs between the states and also orders full

faith and credit of the laws of each state in every other state.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/the-constitution

The founders also took pains to establish the relationship between the states. States are required to give "full faith and credit" to the laws, records, contracts, and judicial proceedings of the other states, although Congress may regulate the manner in which the states share records, and define the scope of this clause. States are barred from discriminating against citizens of other states in any way, and cannot enact tariffs against one another. States must also extradite those accused of crimes to other states for trial.


Nothing in there prohibits tariffs or fees on other countries or on US citizens living in them, but clearly, does not allow states to levy tariffs on citizens of other states. Good?

[fascisthunter]

46. exactly!

[DesertDiamond]

36. "Merchants have no country..."

[Bonobo]

39. It's not about money for me, but it may sound that way if you're not paying attention.

Let me put it this way:
The fact that I can spend as much money as I do on health insurance and STILL have to pay $5,000 out of pocket for a hernia operation, or $750~$1,000 for a crown or root canal or something similar means more than just money.
The fact that I will have to pay $40,000 or more PER YEAR for college for my 3 kids (an impossible task) means MORE than just money.
The fact that a huge percentage of my money goes to slaughtering civilians in other countries while ignoring homeless, hungry, ill people in the US means more than money.
The fact that the US spends my tax money to incarcerate the largest per capita number of its own citizens in the world means more than money.
The fact that 20,000 handgun deaths occur every year in the US, whereas it is more like 50 or so for other major countries means more than just money.

All these things, and many others, mean that the US is a toxic place for me and my children. The accidental fact that I was born in the US means nothing to me. Loyalty is a two way street.

Ask Rousseau.

On edit: This thread's responses are shocking and disappointing.

[girl gone mad]

179. I agree.

We have gone through the looking glass here.

What has this place become? We sound no better than teabaggers, hissing at and spitting on those who choose a different work path.

Is it bitterness? Resentment? Jealousy?

What would provoke supposedly liberal people to call for a citizenship tax and/or a poll tax or to cheer what is largely a boon to the corporate oligarchy at the sole expense of the global mobility of American workers, as if it's some kind of laudable progressive victory?

Do these posters really believe that the wealthy are harmed by this tax? As if!!

Do they really believe, for example, that it's good thing to make it much more costly for an American citizen to take a job at the Large Hadron Collider than it is for a British or Indian citizen?

Once again, American workers are getting the shaft in the globalized economy, and DUers cheer.

[wickerwoman]

187. Do you really believe a tax on incomes over $91K

seriously impedes the global mobility of American workers?

Who turns down a job on the Large Hadron Collider because they have to pay *some* taxes on income over $91K?

And how are any taxes at all a "boon to the corporate oligarchy"?

I think you have an interesting argument in terms of ethics and the constitutionality of these taxes, but the hyperbole isn't helping your case.

It's not about jealousy or teabaggers- it's about a different take on the ethical responsibilities of citizens. Why can't we discuss that without calling people goofy, insane, freepers or claiming that they're cheering the shafting of American workers?

[girl gone mad]

189. I know it does.

An American citizen doing the same type of work may be earning significantly less than their foreign peers because they are being double taxed on a good portion of their income. This is a very tough circumstance for a young family with large student debts (another burden that's virtually exclusive to Americans) and all of the additional expenses involved in living and working in a foreign country.

I used the LHC example precisely because I have a friend at CERN who has been tied up for the last two weekends filling out all of her tax forms. She's wasting more than twice as much time on this as most of her colleagues.

The housing bust is hurting our national and global mobility and of course having to pay US taxes on income earned overseas hurts global mobility. Try to imagine being recruited by a top research facility in Canada or the UK but being stuck with a mortgage for a house you can't sell and in addition having much of your income taxed two times. An American-based company could offer a much lower salary and still have an advantage over the foreign firm. This is why the taxation of foreign-earned income helps American companies keep top American scientists and engineers at lower pay. It's anti-competitive and anti-worker, in my honest opinion. If Indian workers were taxed in India on income earned at 400% of the Indian poverty level ($2000/year?), don't you think this would mean fewer Indian workers would want to immigrate? And American companies would have to pay higher wages to lure them here?

[dipsydoodle]

40. Shame your IRS

don't devote equal effort to your corporation's activities abroad. There is a post elsewhere about corporations paying no tax at all.

[DailyGrind51]

47. i guess "patriotism" isn't what it used to be?

[Spider Jerusalem]

54. It never was

the Founding Fathers were a bunch of rich guys who didn't want to pay taxes, after all. (Who still considered themselves Englishmen, for the most part.)

[Hestia]

53. Did ya'll see this little nugget in the OP?

Last month, the Treasury Department announced more rigorous requirements for Americans living abroad to report information on foreign bank accounts. The reporting requirement has been in place for years, but only in the most recent couple of years has the IRS gotten tough about enforcing penalties.

The information return must be filed by any U.S. citizen or resident whose balance in all foreign accounts combined exceeds $10,000 at any time during the year. Stiff penalties, up to 50% of the annual account balance, punish failure to file.

[cosmicone]

55. Sometimes I cannot believe DUers who are normally a very

intelligent bunch. However, on some news items, some of the DUers react more emotionally than with logic.

Think of this issue on a smaller scale.

Let's say you were born and grew up in Massachusetts and after working there a few years, moved to Hawai'i which has no state income tax.

Would you like Massachusetts taxing your income in Hawai'i, forcing you to file Massachusetts returns and asking you information about your bank accounts in Hawai'i? Would you like being penalized for failure to provide that information? Would you like to pay Massachusetts income taxes on money you made in Hawai'i even though you haven't been to Massachusetts for one or more decades?

[high density]

58. Nobody is forcing them to remain a US citizen

Of all of the taxation issues out there, I find this taxation on Americans abroad, most of whom are probably very well off anyway, to be the least of our worries.

If you remained a resident of Massachusetts and earned income in Hawaii, I'd have no problem with MA collecting income taxes on that income from Hawaii. I know Maine will do that to residents who work in income-tax-free New Hampshire.

[Spider Jerusalem]

60. There's a difference between resident and citizen.

A US citizen who is NOT a US resident and may not have been for years or decades is still expected to pay US taxes. So your position is logically inconsistent. And assuming that 'most Americans abroad are probably very well off anyway' is a long way from accurate. (Six million US citizens living abroad; I would assume that the number who are 'very well off' is far lower than you'd think.)

[high density]

66. So if you don't care about being a resident, renounce your citizenship

Obviously these people must see some personal benefit to retaining their citizenship if they are willing to pay for it. I see no reason to make it free now.

[Spider Jerusalem]

70. Most people who move abroad retain their citizenship.

And again, citizenship is a right conferred by birth in the US; not a privilege for which one has to pay.

[liberation]

75. Save your energy... empathy is becoming a rarer commodity in this nation

and DU seems to be no exception.

The fact that so many posters seem to consider the concept of citizenship a paid for privilege and not a birth right, is rather troubling. Heck, I have seen some libertarians exhibit a more developed social conscience.

[xsquid]

92. Du is growing to be one of the worse examples.

It's the left's version of "freepers". Don't get me wrong, not everyone here is like this but the loudest hate filled segment is coming close to convincing me that there are 2 parties of hate and neither is worth supporting.

[mbperrin]

132. Birth is not the only method to acquire citizenship. And that can be revoked.

http://stason.org/TULARC/travel/us-visa-usa-immigration/274-Under-what-conditions-can-my-citizenship-be-revoked.html

This article is from the FAQ, by with numerous contributions by others.

274 Under what conditions can my citizenship be revoked?

If your behavior is not well disposed to the good order and happiness
of the U.S. or if you concealed your wartime activities when applying
for visas to enter the U.S. after World War II. Also, for example you do
one of the following:
(a) Refusal to testify before a congressional committee regarding
alleged subversive activities within 10 years after becoming a
U.S. citizen.
(b) Establish permanent foreign residence within 1 year after becoming
a U.S. citizen
Note from Rich Wales, [e-mail]
This provision was repealed on October 25, 1994, by
Public Law 103-416 (108 Stat. 4305). The old require-
ment that candidates for US citizenship must intend to
reside permanently in the US following naturalization
was also repealed by this same law.

(c) Membership in an outlawed organization within 5 years after becoming
a citizen.

Denaturalization proceedings may be instituted against you for (a)-(c).

REFERENCES:
<1> Nancy-Jo Merritt, "Understanding Immigration Law," Makai Publishing group,
Scottsdale, Arizona, 1993.

[mbperrin]

133. And you can lose many of the rights of citizenship while residing here.

Nothing "sacred" or untouchable about citizenship or the rights attached to it.


http://www.alanellis.com/CM/Publications/federal-felony-conviction.asp

Federal Felony Conviction, Collateral Civil Disabilities

BY ALAN ELLIS, PETER J.SCHERR
Criminal Justice, Fall 1996

When a federal felon is released from prison after serving his or her sentence, there are a host of issues that must be confronted, not the least of which is the civil rights he or she may have lost.

The basic civil rights guaranteed to all citizens of the United States are so often touted as a fundamental part of American citizenship that their loss is frequently overlooked when I speak of those who have served a federal felony conviction—often until it's too late. The restrictions placed on felons after their release from prison can be the foundation for further jeopardy. Recently released felons must know what rights and entitlements they retain in order to avoid needless hassle and potential prosecution because under the laws of many states, as well as federal law, the ramifications of a felony conviction can endure long after the sentence has been served. A classic example is the right of a felon to possess a firearm.

One of the most common mistakes made when discussing restoration of a federal felon's civil rights is the assumption that it is necessarily a function of federal law. The deprivation and restoration of a felon's civil rights is almost exclusively a matter of state law. While there are certain areas in which the civil collateral consequences of a federal felony conviction are codified, the majority of the power to deny and restore a felon's civil rights is found in the states. A quick glance at the laws of several states, however, reveals that, as they say in real estate, just about everything is determined by location, location, location. Where federal inmates find themselves upon release will be the guide to determining what civil rights they have retained and those for which they will have to fight.

The States' Role in Civil Disabilities

At first glance, it may seem that the question of what rights and privileges a federal felon may lose or retain is easily answered. A closer look reveals a patchwork of disqualifications and restorations. The laws governing the same rights and privileges vary widely from state to state, as well as various federal preclusions from some essential rights. Convicted felons may lose essential rights, such as the right to hold a public office or to vote. Eligibility to earn a living and practice a profession may be restricted. And, in almost every state, as well as under federal law, convicted felons will either be restricted in or relinquish their right to carry or possess firearms. These disabilities and the collateral consequences that flow from a federal felony conviction can be explained as burdens that result from a conviction.

The majority of jurisdictions do, however, provide for a means of removing these burdens. Relief frequently comes automatically with the passing of time, or through an executive or judicial act that is often based on demonstrating that the defendant has been rehabilitated. Again, as with the disability itself, there is no general agreement on how the burdens are lifted. The road to relief must be evaluated on a state-by-state basis and in light of the few governing federal laws.

One of the major roadblocks to lifting restrictions on a federal felon is found in states that require a pardon for removal of state law disabilities. This is a result of various states' adoption of the principle that the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution precludes them from granting a pardon to federal offenders, as that would amount to a derogation of the president's pardon power. It should be noted that this position may be somewhat inconsistent with federal power to impose civil disabilities on federal offenders under the respective state laws. Nonetheless, many states recognize that while it is solely the president's power to pardon a federal offense, the states do have the power to restore to the federal offender the rights taken away by operation of state law.

Despite the variation from state to state for restoring a federal felon's civil rights, there are several patterns that emerge. There are roughly five different categories in which to divide the states. First, there are the states in which few, if any, civil rights are lost as a result of a felony conviction, and, if lost, are restored automatically upon release from prison. The second group includes states that provide for restoration of rights upon the felon's release by completion of the sentence or by way of a certificate of discharge from the sentence. The third group of states requires the felon to go through a court or administrative procedure and may require demonstration of rehabilitation. In the fourth group of states, federal felons can have their civil rights restored only if they are granted a pardon. The final and fifth category includes states in which federal felons lose one or more of their rights permanently.

More than half of the states require a pardon before one or more of the basic civil rights are restored. Unfortunately, the majority of these states declare that federal offenders are ineligible for state pardons, with about 20 states requiring the pardon to be granted by the president. (For state-by-state details, see Civil Disabilities of Convicted Felons: A State-by- State Survey, United States Department of Justice, Office of the Pardon Attorney (October 1992).) This all begs the obvious question of what civil rights are lost by a person who suffers a federal felony conviction. Again, this varies from state to state, but there are a few basic rights that are not lost as a result of a felony conviction. First and foremost is the right to vote. This is generally never lost on a permanent basis and if it is lost it is only for the time served. The right to sit on a jury is perhaps the hardest right to regain. A number of states also deny the restoration of the right to hold office, even if the felon has been granted a pardon. On the other hand, a large number of states forbid the automatic deprivation of employment based on a felony conviction, but a majority of states afford for factoring in criminal conduct as a reason for denying occupational or professional licensing.

A few examples of some of the states' procedures for restoration of certain civil rights will illuminate the variations. In Arizona, federal felons lose the right to vote, serve on a jury, hold a public office, and own a firearm (in the case of violent offenders) as a result of their conviction. The first-time offender felon has most of these rights automatically restored upon completion of his or her sentence (except for owning a firearm, which requires a court or administrative proceeding), but recidivists must apply to the court or obtain a pardon. Federal offenders are precluded from receiving state pardons, but can obtain automatic restoration or court relief.

Those ex-felons who find themselves in Vermont will have lost only the right to serve on a jury if they were sentenced to a period of imprisonment, but the right can be restored by pardon. The law of Vermont is still unsettled on the issue of whether federal offenders are eligible for state pardons.

In New York, federal felons lose the right to serve on a jury, the right to vote, and must forfeit their publicly held office. The right to vote is lost only while they are incarcerated and is automatically restored upon expiration of the sentence or by administrative or court procedures. A federal felon in New York cannot receive a state pardon and is permanently banned from carrying, pogessing, or owning a firearm.

Federal Felonies, Guns and The Law

The issue of firearms disabilities is extremely complex and specialized. It is where state law and federal law cross paths to create an even more diverse and patchwork-like result. Of paramount importance is the Supreme Court's decision in Beecham v. United States, 114 S. Ct. 1669 (1994) where it was held that even if the felon's civil rights have been restored under state law, federal firearms disabilities continue to apply to a person convicted of a federal offense. The Court concluded that the restoration of rights required under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20) to remove a federal conviction from the coverage of the felon in possession statute must be accomplished under federal, not state, law. It should also be noted that some of the firearms disabilities imposed may apply to handguns, but not rifles and other long guns. This is further convoluted by the fact that in some jurisdictions, only persons convicted of violent crimes are precluded from possessing firearms; in other jurisdictions the felon may be permitted to possess but not carry the firearm. In some states, the federal felon may lose the right to carry and possess a gun outside of his or her home or business. In any event, there is considerable variance from state to state on what the terms "carry" and "possess" actually mean. This maze of varying rights and responsibilities can often leave a recently released federal felon grappling with uncertainty in determining where law abiding behavior ends and criminal conduct begins. What becomes clear from this brief review is that there are no consistent rules or guidelines for what civil disabilities a person convicted of a felony suffers.

The loss of various civil rights may, for the most part, be controlled by state law, but there are a host of federal civil disabilities that flow from a federal felony conviction. These collateral consequences under federal law are found both in various statutes and the U.S. Constitution.

The right to vote is virtually unrestricted by the Constitution. While there are no qualifications set in the Constitution for voting, it does prohibit disenfranchisement on several grounds, including age, gender, and race. (U.S. Const. amend. XIII, XIX, XXVI.) Instead, the Constitution recognizes the states' power to set qualifications for voting, even in federal elections. (U.S. Const. art I, § 4; art. II § 1, amend. XVII.) The Fourteenth Amendment expressly recognizes the states' authority to deny the right to vote based on a conviction. Once again, this means going to the laws of the state in question to determine whether the federal felon has the right to vote.

The right to serve on a federal grand or petit jury for a person convicted in federal or state court for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year is restricted by 28 U.S.C. § 1865. Unless the felon's civil rights have been restored, this statute precludes federal jury service. Because there are no federal laws for restoring civil rights, section 1865 presumably refers to restoration of civil rights under state law.

The right to hold federal office or employment may also be restricted by operation of federal law. Generally, a federal felony conviction does not automatically disqualify a person from federal employment, but it is considered a factor in evaluating suitability. In some cases, a person employed by the federal government who has been convicted of a felony may lose or forfeit his or her employment if the offense arises from advocating the overthrow of the government (18 U.S.C. § 2385). In most circumstances, the greater the relationship between the offense committed and the type of employment, the more likely the felon will be precluded from federal employment.

A person who holds a federal license, such as a customs broker's license or an export license, may lose the license as a result of a conviction. These types of disabilities will most often be found where there is some relationship between the criminal conduct and the license held. A drug conviction may also result in the loss of a certain license (21 U.S.C. § 862).

There are a host of federal benefits that may be revoked when a person is convicted of a federal felony. Persons convicted of drug offenses after September 1, 1989, may lose or have restrictions and modifications placed upon their grants, licenses, contracts, and other federal benefits. Excluded from this list are benefits such as welfare, Social Security, retirement, health, disability, and public housing benefits. The public housing benefits may be restricted if the offense includes criminal activity that "threatens the health, safety, . . . peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other tenants or any drug related activity on or near such premises." (42 U.S.C. § 1437f(d)(1)(B)(iii).) Not only is the tenant covered by this statute, but actions by his or her household members and guests can force the tenant to lose this privilege. Once evicted for drug-related activity, the tenant must wait three years before reentering public housing.

A federal felon may also be restricted by a sentencing court in his or her occupational choices. As a condition of probation or supervised release, if there exists "a reasonably direct relationship" between the defendant's criminal conduct and his or her occupation, the sentencing court may impose restrictions. (U.S.S.G. § 5F1.5.)

A person convicted of a federal felony will also be restricted in his or her ability to become an officer, director, employee, or controlling shareholder of an institution that is a federally insured depository or owns or controls a federally insured depository. Additionally, a person who trades in commodities may be refused registration by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission if he or she has served a federal felony conviction.

In cases where a person has been convicted of offenses, inter alia—robbery, bribery, extortion, embezzlement, murder, and assault with intent to kill—he or she may be prohibited from serving as a consultant, officer, or director of or to labor organizations and employee benefit plans. This prohibition lasts for 13 years after the conviction or the end of the imprisonment, whichever is later, unless the sentencing court sets a shorter period. (29 U.S.C. §§ 504, 1111.) The only means to remove this disability earlier is if the United States Parole Commission or sentencing court restores the defendant's "citizenship rights." Aliens who have been convicted of a felony are disqualified from temporary or permanent residence status as well as temporary residence status as special agricultural worker (8 U.S.C. §§ 1255a(a)(4)(B), 1255a(b)(1)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 213.3.) There are various other restrictions placed on aliens that will permanently exclude them from the United States.

Once a person has been convicted of a federal felony, he or she is ineligible for enlistment in any of the armed forces. Depending on the crime, felons who are veterans may also lose their benefits, including pensions and disability, as well as Veterans Administration benefits.

Restoration of Civil Rights

The mechanism for the restoration of any of these civil rights and benefits may vary. Perhaps the best means, yet the hardest to obtain, is a presidential pardon. A pardon can serve to restore the federal felon's right to vote, serve on a jury, and to hold public office. It may also lessen other disabilities that have been imposed as a result of a felony conviction. Generally, though, there is no federal statute that provides for the lifting of civil disabilities and the restoration of all civil rights. Again, in most cases, reinstating the rights to vote, hold public office, and serve on a jury are accomplished through state law.

Conclusion

The ever-changing nature of both statutory and case law requires the practitioner to remain vigilant over the latest changes in the laws governing civil collateral consequences that may affect a federal felon. Because the states are such large players in the world of civil rights and disabilities, it is of the utmost importance to be aware of the law of the jurisdiction where the felon will locate after his or her release. As noted, some states have much more liberal and forgiving laws for reinstating a federal felon's civil rights, while other states will never allow this person to partake in the activities most American citizens take for granted.

[depakid]

63. Good riddance to the rubbish

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of you teamming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door." ~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Lazarus">Emma Lazurus

[cosmicone]

64. Wrong example on your part.

Maine taxes NH earnings ONLY WHEN the taxpayer "lives" in Maine but goes to work across state lines.

Most states do that because taxes are based upon where one LIVES.

These people in OP are not residing in the US and have not for years.

[high density]

65. So renounce your citizenship and escape the clutches of the IRS!

I don't remain a "citizen" of Maine when I move away.

[Spider Jerusalem]

69. Because Maine is not a country?

You remain a citizen of the country of your birth in most cases unless you voluntarily renounce your citizenship. Which most people don't do, for one reason and another. (For instance, US citizens who renounce their citizenship are not permitted to return to the US for longer than 30 days at a time; which is hard for people who have significant family ties in the US.)

[cosmicone]

76. Which is EXACTly my point

Taxes should not be based upon citizenship but by residence. Residents incur expenses to the government by way of providing fire, police, roads etc. A non resident doesn't cost a dime. Residents should pay taxes wherever they reside.

In your example, one shouldn't have to burn one's Maine birth certificate if living in NH or Mass.

[harmonicon]

121. what is your problem with the constitution?

You seem very eager for others to give up their constitutional rights. What constitutional rights would you like to give up because someone doesn't like that you have them?

[wickerwoman]

117. It doesn't work like that.

If you're an American citizen living overseas, you're only taxed on income in excess of $60,000 a year. If you make less than that, you don't have to file tax returns.

If you make more than that in another country (which is hard because usually salaries and cost of living are much lower outside the US), boo frickin' hoo. You benefited from the US education system, why not give back? And at that kind of salary you can afford an accountant to worry about the paperwork.

[Spider Jerusalem]

118. You have to file a return regardless of income.

Apparently you've never lived overseas and had to do it. And cost of living is much HIGHER in most of Western Europe, by the way. Any idea how much a gallon of gasoline costs on average in most places in Europe? Current rates of exchange, one US gallon of unleaded will set you back over seven US dollars in equivalent cost in the UK. And Western Europe has higher rates of income taxation plus VAT (17.5% in the UK, as high as 25% in other EU countries). And if you benefited from the US education system it's because a) your parents' property taxes helped pay for the public school you attended, in most states, and b) because you paid for your college degree with student loans you're probably still paying off (and you don't OWE a fucking thing).

[mbperrin]

134. Your student loans paid for about 20% of the actual cost of your

college. The taxpayers paid the rest, whether at a public institution or a so-called private school, which are traps for state and federal money.

So yes, you owe.

[Spider Jerusalem]

139. Not really, no

apparently you have the bizarre and rather medieval notion that citizenship is not a right but a form of feudal submission requiring tribute.

[mbperrin]

143. Apparently you have the common attitude amongst the privileged

that a free lunch is your birthright, whilst "others" must work to provide that for you. That's actually your feudal thinking.

Your remedy is simple: to avoid payment, renounce your useless citizenship which is nothing but an encumbrance to you, was never worth anything to you, is worth nothing now, and will be worth nothing in the future. Why would you hesitate?

[Spider Jerusalem]

147. Well, no

Not at all. I'm not privileged, and I certainly don't expect others to work to provide me anything; you on the other hand seem to think that for some reason Americans living abroad should pay US taxes on their earnings despite them neither living nor working in the US (which is a uniquely American viewpoint; no other developed nation has similar tax laws).

[mbperrin]

150. So you really would jump off a building because all the other kids were

doing it?

My old mom would not be amused. Mob mentality rarely is a great measure of virtue, do you think?

Again, why not take the easy route and rid yourself of this useless encumbrance by simply renouncing your citizenship? It's useless, of no value, never was, never will be. Get rid of it, I urge you.

[Spider Jerusalem]

151. Logic and reason are measures of virtue in law.

Taxing a non-resident on income earned outside the legal jurisdiction of the taxing authority on which the person earning it has ALREADY paid tax in his resident jurisdiction is neither logical nor reasonable.

[mbperrin]

153. There's your solution! If it's outside the legal jurisdiction, don't pay it!

They can't enforce it if it's outside their jurisdiction, can they?

On the other hand, logic would dictate that if they can enforce it, then it falls within their jurisdiction.

Why are you avoiding renouncing your useless citizenship that only impinges on you, only causes you pain, never provides any value to you, and never will? Why? Aren't YOU logical?

[Spider Jerusalem]

154. There you go again, projecting.

Tell us about the useless eaters. Your talk of 'leeches' wasn't far off that.

[quakerboy]

160. Take your argument to its logical ends and then lets chat

The US has the capability to enforce just about anything one time, if they are willing to pay the price. Therefore everything is US jurisdiction, right? The whole world is just a big US playground.

Alternately, my former uncle has the ability to enforce fear on my aunt, 20 years after the divorce and from the inside of a jail cell. I guess her life falls in his jurisdiction.

I don't know the laws regarding this. From what I read here I have no idea if any of it will apply to me when I move abroad to spend some time in my wife's home country, as I don't expect to make much more than the minimum to pay basic bills, about what I do here. But the pure hassle of it is one of the things slowing me down. I don't have money to consult with an accountant about what requirements I will have. I don't yet even have the money to ship my limited amount of crap to a potential new home. And as this world turns, its hard to see when I will. In the mean time, my wife's country hasn't shown any desire to disinherit her just because she has to make a living down here and hasn't been filing taxes in a country she hasn't been living in or using the services of.

Its a shame that mine apparently will be doing so. And my fellow lefty's will cheer heartily at my predicament, because I must be a filthy rich bastard if I want to let my wife go home for a few years.

[wickerwoman]

163. Oh, I'm sorry. It's actually been increased.

The Foreign Earned Income Exclusion is now $91,400.

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=96817,00.html

So if you earn less than $91,400 you don't owe additional US taxes on your income.

[mbperrin]

164. The question was whether or not the US can enforce its tax laws.

My advice to the poster who thought that they couldn't was that he shouldn't pay, then.

Now, if you want to enlarge the scope of the argument beyond tax laws, I'd argue that the US is just about powerless overseas outside enforcing the tax code. We've spent trillions occupying foreign countries who still haven't done what the official policymakers want (note: I was against both current wars from the beginning, still am, but that has no effect on whether we are there or not.) We're in Korea for more than half a century to no result; heck, we can't even get our own troops out of Kyrgyzstan.

The one thing all this muscle has done is to enrich some of the "right" folks, like Cheney and Halliburton, who have removed to Dubai, where they continue to fleece US taxpayers for billions of dollars per year in return for selling used shower water as drinking water to the troops and electrocuting the random GI in those selfsame showers. Quite a value for the money, eh?

I can hardly use what other countries do as a guide to what we should do; that was sort of the point of the Revolution, wasn't it? My little mom used to ask us, "If all the other kids jumped off a bridge, would you, too?" Simple mob behavior hardly connotes virtue. If there are virtues, they should be able to be sung.

You yourself admit that you probably won't exceed the $91k no-tax limit, so I don't see a problem for you.

On the other hand, you are wrong when you think you cannot afford to consult a CPA. You CANNOT not afford it. Besides, their advice and tax prep work is deductible. Enjoy your wife's home, have a good time, and if you do become filthy rich, send a few dimes home, eh?

[harmonicon]

152. I think it's high time we stop referring to the US as a "developed nation"

The US is so far behind the rest of these countries that it really shouldn't be grouped in with them - maybe the US no inhabits a group of countries which include Russia, China, India, Brazil and Mexico, but not actual first-world countries. The political and economic disparities are too great to really justify it. Sure, there is a shared cultural history, but that doesn't mean much - Jamaica also has a shared cultural history with Europe, but it's not discussed as being akin to Belgium.

[wickerwoman]

161. I've lived overseas for almost ten years

in Ireland and the Czech Republic (before they were in the EU) and in Peru and China and now in New Zealand. Everywhere except the EU is much cheaper than the US. Gas was $4 a gallon when I lived in Ireland but food, rent, clothes, tuition, health care, etc. were all very cheap.

You only *have* to file a tax return if you owe money (or if you want to collect your refund). I didn't file tax returns for the five years I lived in China until I tried to immigrate to New Zealand (and they wanted a record of my taxes for the last ten years.) I did all five years at the same time and wasn't penalized because I didn't owe anything. And I was acting on the advice of family members who work for the IRS. Again, if you make less than $91,000 a year, you don't owe taxes in the US. And if you don't owe taxes, you don't *have* to file a return (although you may need to for some other reason).

[girl gone mad]

180. You got VERY lucky.

The IRS could have filed a return for you on those years that you failed to live up to your obligations and you might well have found yourself owing tens of thousands in taxes that couldn't get out of paying.

Not filing a return is really one of the worst moves you can make.

[wickerwoman]

185. No, I did my research.

I didn't make enough money to owe US taxes. How could I end up owing tens of thousands in taxes just because I didn't file a return when I didn't owe anything in the first place? You aren't required to file a return if your income is below a certain level.

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p54/ch01.html#en_US_publink100047318

The IRS doesn't just fill out a form for you with made-up numbers they decide that you owe just because you don't file a tax return every year.

And for the record... I'm not recommending not filing your return... I'm saying do your homework. You don't *always* have to file a return no matter what. It depends on your income, how many days of the year you reside in the foreign country, whether or not you returned to the US, etc.

[girl gone mad]

188. It doesn't matter if you didn't make enough to owe taxes..

It's still best to file.

Yes, the IRS can and will file a substitute return on your behalf. They do it if you have any kind of reported income but fail to file, and sometimes even if you don't have reported income but have filed in previous years. Yes, they will guess at your income and make up numbers. They will report short term losses as gains, assume you were self-employed and do all sorts of other odd things.

They do it all the time. You got lucky.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_happens_if_you_don%27t_file_an_income-tax_return
http://www.backtaxeshelp.com/tax-blog/filing-taxes/what-if-the-irs-filed-my-tax-return-for-me.html

There best defense is to file a return every year and always pay all of the taxes you owe (or get refunded on the taxes you've already payed).

[mbperrin]

131. Constitution prohibits that.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/the-constitution

The founders also took pains to establish the relationship between the states. States are required to give "full faith and credit" to the laws, records, contracts, and judicial proceedings of the other states, although Congress may regulate the manner in which the states share records, and define the scope of this clause. States are barred from discriminating against citizens of other states in any way, and cannot enact tariffs against one another. States must also extradite those accused of crimes to other states for trial.



I know that it's really quaint to refer to the Constitution these days, but I'm a quaint sort of guy.

[piedmont]

186. There's a very simple solution to that scenario: become a citizen of the place you live in

Either it's worth the money you pay in taxes to remain a citizen of Massachusetts or it isn't.

[harmonicon]

203. it's not so easy to just "become a citizen of the place you live in"

Even then, why should someone like myself give up my US citizenship? Why would I give up the right to - heaven forbid it should need happen - move back to the US to take care of my parents or for some other emergency? Furthermore, what if I wanted to move elsewhere? Why not just remain a citizen of one place if you're going to move around a lot? No other country requires double taxation of its citizens. Blaming the victim may be a new DU tactic, but it's pretty old in the conservative realms. I won't buy it.

[mainer]

199. Um, wrong example. Hawaii does have a state income tax.

But if you used New Hampshire, you'd have a point.

[tammywammy]

67. I don't understand why we're making ex-pats pay income taxes

On income they earn overseas. :shrug:

[treestar]

77. There's a credit

So if you live in a country with higher taxes, though you may have to file 1040 you will owe nothing. If you live in a country with lower taxes, you would have to pay the difference.

There are probably treaties about it and reciprocity with other countries.

All a wash, IMO.

Anyone who renounces their citizenship over it - don't let the door hit them, I'd say to them.

[JCMach1]

84. Exactly, this only affects the STINKING rich...

[harmonicon]

91. that's simply not true

I have friends who are effected by this, and they would be considered to be - at best - "middle class". The laws are better now than they were a few years ago, so these same hard-working folks are taxed as much as they used to be, but requesting double taxation is still dirty and ethically a horrible thing to do.

[JCMach1]

101. ??? There is no double taxation if you make under 91K or so

Even if your hard-working folks made 100K a year they would only pay taxes on 9K.



I really don't see the problem in taxing the wealthy for the privilege of their U.S. citizenship.

[harmonicon]

103. US citizenship is not a privilege, it is a right (nt)

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

111. There's no such thing as a "citizenship tax." Or at least there shouldn't be.

That is effectively what this is.

[coyote]

79. I agree...

I have lived in Germany for 10 years. I pay taxes here and do not understand why I have to file a 1040 every single year. I receive no benefit at all from the US...the US in only 1 of 3 countries that taxes their citzens who live abroad. Why should US citzen who lives abroad pay taxes when they receive no benefit from the US....I don't benefit from US infrastructure, the police dept, fire dept, social security, medicare, school system....nothing....this is all provided to me by the taxes I pay in Germany but yet people on this board want citzens to still want me to pay taxes to the US.

[JCMach1]

83. We don't up to 91K or so

So you only pay if you are really wealthy... Even if you make say 120K, the first 91K is exempt.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

110. The equivalent of 91k/yr is not "really wealthy" in most of Western Europe.

It's pretty much middle class. And yes, it does ding middle class people.

Oh, and remember that whenever the dollar is weak that threshold moves around for those people. Just trying to compute my actual earnings as it translated to USD was a headache and a half.

[scrinmaster]

73. I have dual US/UK citizenship, born in the US to UK parents.

I've never lived in the UK, but some of you would have no problem having me pay taxes to the UK as well as here in the US.

[fujiyama]

74. Is the IRS taxing people based on pre-tax or post tax income in their country of residence?

Are they getting double taxed?

Either way, I really don't see why someone should have to pay US taxes just due to their citizenship status. And I think this knee jerk assumption that most ex-pats are wealthy is ridiculous. Also, many places abroad have a higher cost of living so with this sort of taxation it would be impossible to save anything.

I don't understand why it's impossible to tax the ultra rich IN THIS COUNTRY to a higher extend - and multinational corporations...and I like the idea of taxing financial transactions as well...

[MrsBrady]

78. edit to delete

[midnight]

94. I hope the IRS gets aggressive with Exon....

[lunatica]

98. 500 people? Since when is this a story worthy of any attention?

There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans who live in other countries. 500 people give up their citizenship? Give me a break!

[LiberalFighter]

99. Are these the ones that would likely vote Republican? If so, Good!!

[LiberalFighter]

100. If they run into trouble with their country of residence...

which Embassy will they avail themselves? Won't they be without a country and not of interest to the USA government?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

107. I had to deal with this stupid crap when I lived overseas.

I'm like, "I already pay UK taxes on my earnings. Why should the US tax this? I'm not using any US government services!" It's ridiculous.

[krabigirl]

114. Yep, me too. And if I was a dual citizen and didn't plan to move back, why not just sever the ties?

I don't see the point anyway. Why would someone want to pay double taxes, year after year?

[Spider Jerusalem]

116. Because a lot of people who work abroad aren't dual citizens, for a start?

And a lot of people do plan to move back to the US at some point; also, having a US passport has advantages. (As does having a non-US passport, in many parts of the world)

[mbperrin]

135. Having an advantage without paying for it is theft, wouldn't you agree?

Acquisition of an asset without paying is simply stealing it.

And holding your future residence here in readiness is worth something, isn't it? So pay it, or relinquish the items of value and pay nothing. Very normal market transactions.

[harmonicon]

140. thank god your medieval ideas are exactly what the constitution forbids

Your views are extremist and anti-american. What would you suggest each newborn in the US be charged in order to become a citizen? Should that debt collect interest until the little tots are old enough to work to pay tribute to their god-king 'Mer'ca?

[mbperrin]

146. We provide for newborns because they are unable to do so for themselves.

They do indeed then pay into the system to support newborns at that time. The charge for making money in this country is in the tax codes, same as all others, nothing strange about it. And the part that we charge, that we don't pay as we go, does indeed earn interest, which will have to be paid someday, by those alive then and making incomes.

It's simple, really. Those who are alive and making money can pay for the things we need. The dead make no money, so do not pay. Those who cannot make money cannot pay - they have no money. Please show how it could be otherwise, unless you really have found that famous money tree that my old dad was so keen on reminding us kids that he had never found.

Countries require money to operate. Leeches who benefit and who could pay, but don't, will eventually cause the system to collapse due to lack of maintenance and upkeep.

Unless you've got that perpetual motion machine working. And I don't even believe in gawd, because if there was one, he or she or it would never allow the messes that exist to do so, so please take your religion and peddle it at someone else's door.

I'm busy paying your bills.

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Spider Jerusalem]

142. American citizenship isn't an asset?

It's my birthright as someone born in the US; see the Constitution and Title VIII of United States Code (and see also Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

[girl gone mad]

181. Better run out and tell all of those little kids on CHIP..

using food stamps, or getting a free public education that their parents will never pay for that they're thieves!

Better hurry up and repeal that ban on pre-existing conditions since lots of kids will be getting medical care they didn't 100% pay for!

Oh my god, the horrors of someone using a service that their citizenship entitles them to!!!111!!

I'm Series!11! This is HUGH!!!1! WE MUST ALERT THE PROPER AITHORITIES!1132q!!!

[mbperrin]

190. As I pointed out in my other posts, I gladly pay taxes so that those

children receive all those services and more. I have taught for three decades. Newborns, infants, and children have no means of income, and as I explained in other posts here, we provide for them on that basis.

But when able bodied adults who earn incomes (in this case over $91k per year) take assets without paying, they are thieves. Simple as that. I do not wish to pay for them as freeloaders, because that is what they are.

I'm tired of people who "love" their kids, and have plenty of money for Budweiser and Marlboros, but can't seem to come up with school clothes. I'm sick of people like Dick Cheney and Halliburton, who receive billions of dollars in sweetheart contracts, but move to Dubai to avoid paying taxes, while my taxes go straight into their pockets. No use alerting the proper authorities - they and their buddies are the ones who are stealing the rest of us blind.

[mainer]

196. The advantages all seem to derive from the FOREIGN country, not US

Since when has the US provided healthcare?

If you live in France, at least France will take care of your medical needs.

[mbperrin]

198. Then renounce your citizenship, because it's worth nothing, right?

Problem solved.

[mainer]

200. I live in the US and pay taxes in the US. But even I can see this is unfair

People should not be subjected to double taxation, paying for services in a country where they don't even live.

[mainer]

201. Actually, for what you get back for your taxes, you're better off in Europe

At least there you get a social safety net.

[Thor_MN]

120. Out of curiosity... When you see "to protect American interests abroad"

Are they sometimes talking about these people? Or is always corporate property that is being protected? Whichever it is, I can live with the protected paying some taxes to cover the costs of deploying our military.

[quakerboy]

162. Corporate property

and US strategic interests, which often center around potential corporate property/profit.

And if this were a thread about charging those interests a regular tax rate for the services provided to them, I would hope we could all agree on that. But that's not what is being examined here.

[Xenotime]

123. money is the root of all evil. Might want to watch out for these folks.

[JonLP24]

124. For some reason

I'm not angry at those that do.

I did not know this
"Unlike most jurisdictions, the U.S. taxes the income of citizens and green- card holders no matter where in the world it is earned."

I spent 1 year in Kuwait/Iraq and wasn't income taxed AT ALL. I thought it had something to do with being in another country but I guess that wasn't it. It doesn't make any sense to me to tax someone's income that is earning it another country. I don't blame them nor am I angry at them.

[Stargazer99]

125. One thing monied people have a habit of forgetting

Rights and responsibilities come together. If you don't like paying US taxes start living in the US like the rest of the common folk who live on a lot less than $91,000 annually. Citizenship is a right but it is also a responsibility (you pay taxes like the rest of us).

[mbperrin]

136. About as well said as can be.

Thank you.

[Spider Jerusalem]

144. Um, what the fuck are you talking about?

Why should someone whose income is entirely earned OUTSIDE the US pay US taxes on it? Citizenship is a right, as defined in the Constitution and various subsidiary laws; nationality is defined as a right which one may not be arbitrarily denied under the Universal Convention on Human Rights. No developed country save the US taxes its citizens on the basis of citizenship; taxation is more usually on the basis of residence. If you moved from whatever state you live in to another, would you think that it was fair for the state you didn't live in, didn't work in, and didn't earn your money in to claim income taxes?

[wordpix]

155. and then there are the shell companies run by people like Mitt the shit Romney

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/17/nation/na-mittoffshore17

This could be why McShame wanted Palin instead of Romney

snip: In Bermuda, Romney served as president and sole shareholder for four years of Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors Ltd. It funneled money into Bain Capital's Sankaty family of hedge funds, which invest in bonds and other debt issued by corporations, as well as bank loans.

Like thousands of similar financial entities, Sankaty maintains no office or staff in Bermuda. Its only presence consists of a nameplate at a lawyer's office in downtown Hamilton, capital of the British island territory.

"It's just a mail drop, essentially," said Marc B. Wolpow, who worked with Romney for nine years at Bain Capital and who set up Sankaty Ltd. in October 1997 without ever visiting Bermuda. "There's no one doing any work down there other than lawyers."

Investing through what's known as a blocker corporation in Bermuda protects tax-exempt American institutions, such as pension plans, hospitals and university endowments, from paying a 35% tax on what the Internal Revenue Service calls "unrelated business income" from domestic hedge funds that invest in debt, experts say. snip

Another article, this one an interview with an expert on Romney's criminal enterprise:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/17/at_times_romneys_bain_capital_profited

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

157. That is not the same thing at all.

Romney is a US resident. None of the people described in the OP live in the US.

[wordpix]

169. however, article states filing required "by any US citizen...whose balance in all foreign accounts..

combined exceeds $10,000 at any time during the year."

Investment money that comes and goes from Romney's "address," which is a po box, is a foreign acct, right?

snip: Last month, the Treasury Department announced more rigorous requirements for Americans living abroad to report information on foreign bank accounts. The reporting requirement has been in place for years, but only in the most recent couple of years has the IRS gotten tough about enforcing penalties.

The information return must be filed by any U.S. citizen or resident whose balance in all foreign accounts combined exceeds $10,000 at any time during the year. Stiff penalties, up to 50% of the annual account balance, punish failure to file.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

172. Uh, he has to file on his monies held in foreign accounts regardless.

Investment money that comes and goes from Romney's "address," which is a po box, is a foreign acct, right?

Uh... no.

We're talking about people who live outside of the US.

[wordpix]

176. he's doing "business" outside the US with a po box to help investors evade US taxes

I understand he's living in the US; however, he's an accomplice to a crime. End of subject. My question remains, is he going to be looked at in this investigation?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

183. You didn't actually read the article, did you? n/t

[mainer]

202. $10,000. Whoop de doo. Like that makes you a rich bastard

which so many DUers posting here seem to think.

[Romulox]

191. People who live in the US don't directly benefit from most taxes, either...

I see no reason an ex-pat shouldn't have to pay for the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, for example. Arguing that these wars don't redound to the benefit of ex-pats is not a good basis for getting out of paying for them; these wars don't redound to the benefit of people in California or Ohio, either.

In fact, deriving a direct benefit has never been the legal, moral, or logical basis whereby taxes are assessed. :hi:

[MicaelS]

193. If you know what the law is, and THEN you CHOOSE

To live and work outside the US, then you have no one but yourself to blame.

[No Elephants]

205. Meanwhile, Exxon owed NO U.S. taxes in 2009 bc of foreign subsidiaries.

The same free speech rights as humans without all the pesky tax obligations.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/04/report_exxon_paid_no_us_federal_income_tax_2009.php

What do you think a human living abroad costs the U.S. and its citizesn versus what Exxon costs the U.S. and its citizens?

Think roads and bridges, air quality, investigations, etc.

You can blame the free speech bit on the SCOTUS, but who ya gonna blame for corporate tax laws?

Anyone angry enough yet to do more about it than complain on and off message boards?

[sendero]

210. Waahh....

.... it's not the taxes it's the regulatory environment. WHAT FUCKING REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT?

What an asshat. These greedy bastards should just renounce away, they are contributing nothing to the country anyway.