Is expatriating becomming popular?


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Article posted by Yahoo! today suggests more and more people with incomes over 1 million are renouncing their citizenships to avoid the larger percentage of their income that is being taken in taxes.

Link


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, you sure came to the right place for an intelligent, well-informed answer to the question.

Oh wait...no you didn't. You came to a website about gaming to ask an extremely data-dependent question, which is well outside the expertise of anyone here. Here, let me provide you with a link to the sum total of the knowledge of the community residents on the topic:

Link

If you need further information, I recommend checking this website:

Link

The Exchange

Gotta tax the rich, punish them some of us say, because others "deserve" the money. nothing wrong with that plan.....

The Exchange

Reduce Taxation by improving the Income of the US government through energy production


I'm gonna go with no re: topic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow. Their taxes returned to the earlier level because the tax cut sunsetted as it should have, and a teeny tiny number of them want to leave the country? Good riddance. Have fun in Somalia.


The article is extremely weak on actual evidence for its thesis.

They state it's up, but still only to a few thousand, which is hardly "popular", and then show a few high profile examples with links to taxes.

Most of these were already living and working overseas (and thus already ex-pats). So it's not as if we're talking about the mythical "job creators" fleeing our oppressive taxation and taking their job creating talents with them.

So in conclusion: Meh.


So when do they put up the valley wide cloaking device?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
So when do they put up the valley wide cloaking device?

We're actually putting them on the 'B' Ark. It's vitally important they go first, since they're the most important.


Can... Can their ship fire when cloaked? Because if it can were doomed.


Andrew R wrote:
Gotta tax the rich, punish them some of us say, because others "deserve" the money. nothing wrong with that plan.....

I sometimes lose the details in the big picture, but:

So, they raised taxes on everyone, mostly to service the national debt, which, I could have sworn, was caused mostly by the bailouts under both Bush and Obama. (Well, the wars, too, but let's leave that aside for a moment.)

So, the banksters cause the economy to crash, then get bailed out with money borrowed from--guess who?--the banks, and then demand raising taxes and cuts to social spending to pay back the debt to, yup, themselves, and this is somehow punishing the rich?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The rich deserve your liver! Not giving it to them is punishing them.


"Singer and socialite Denise Rich also gave up her citizenship last year under her maiden name, Denise Eisenberg. She is well-known as the ex-wife of former international fugitive Marc Rich, a commodities trader who was indicted on 50 counts of wire fraud, tax evasion, racketeering and other charges. But on his last day in office in 2001, former president Bill Clinton pardoned Rich. Reports claimed that Eisenberg gave up her citizenship to be closer to her long-time partner, an Austrian citizen. Austria also has tax benefits for nationals who live abroad for more than half the year."

Well, this is pretty awesome.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

"Singer and socialite Denise Rich also gave up her citizenship last year under her maiden name, Denise Eisenberg. She is well-known as the ex-wife of former international fugitive Marc Rich, a commodities trader who was indicted on 50 counts of wire fraud, tax evasion, racketeering and other charges. But on his last day in office in 2001, former president Bill Clinton pardoned Rich. Reports claimed that Eisenberg gave up her citizenship to be closer to her long-time partner, an Austrian citizen. Austria also has tax benefits for nationals who live abroad for more than half the year."

Well, this is pretty awesome.

A tragic loss to the country. Whatever shall we do without her.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

"Singer and socialite Denise Rich also gave up her citizenship last year under her maiden name, Denise Eisenberg. She is well-known as the ex-wife of former international fugitive Marc Rich, a commodities trader who was indicted on 50 counts of wire fraud, tax evasion, racketeering and other charges. But on his last day in office in 2001, former president Bill Clinton pardoned Rich. Reports claimed that Eisenberg gave up her citizenship to be closer to her long-time partner, an Austrian citizen. Austria also has tax benefits for nationals who live abroad for more than half the year."

Well, this is pretty awesome.

On a related (but trivial) note, I love when rich people are called "Rich". It's so... cartoon supervillain.


Sebastian, you're so...odd.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I'm thinking Switzerland or New Zealand, and I'm nowhere near a millionaire. Or even a twenty-thousand-aire.

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
So, they raised taxes on everyone, mostly to service the national debt, which, I could have sworn, was caused mostly by the bailouts under both Bush and Obama. (Well, the wars, too, but let's leave that aside for a moment.)

The national debt hardly sprang up in the last 12 years. It's pretty much been skyrocketing since Reagan's administration, because while he talked like a fiscal conservative, he spent like, well, every president after him. And while the bailouts were a terrible idea, military spending makes up much more of our national debt.

Sovereign Court

Unskilled Troll is Unskilled wrote:

Well, you sure came to the right place for an intelligent, well-informed answer to the question.

Oh wait...no you didn't. You came to a website about gaming to ask an extremely data-dependent question, which is well outside the expertise of anyone here. Here, let me provide you with a link to the sum total of the knowledge of the community residents on the topic:

Link

If you need further information, I recommend checking this website:

Link

I'm actually finishing up an LL.M. with a focus on international tax law and tax havens specifically so.... :)

Sovereign Court

Kryzbyn wrote:

Article posted by Yahoo! today suggests more and more people with incomes over 1 million are renouncing their citizenships to avoid the larger percentage of their income that is being taken in taxes.

Link

Like sebastian pointed out, this s!~# is complicated. I'm not at my desk but off the top of my head here are somethings not mentioned in the article:

The reed amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182):

Quote:


(a) Classes of aliens ineligible for visas or admission
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States:
.....

(E) Former citizens who renounced citizenship to avoid taxation
Any alien who is a former citizen of the United States who officially renounces United States citizenship and who is determined by the Attorney General to have renounced United States citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxation by the United States is inadmissible.

Like nazis, draft dodgers and terrorists, they can bar you from returning. I don't think it has ever been enforced (might not be constitutional either).

There is also the ex-patriot act floating around (hasn't been enacted)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-PATRIOT_Act.


Andrew R wrote:
Gotta tax the rich, punish them some of us say, because others "deserve" the money. nothing wrong with that plan.....

We tried taxing the homeless, but it turns out they don't have much money.

Sovereign Court

The increase in folks renouncing their citizenship after 2007-2008 isn't 'Obama!' or 'socialism!'. Instead it is due to a policy change at the IRS with regards to dual citizens who live abroad.

The US is a bit of an odd duck in that it taxes based on citizenship, not based on country of residence. If you live in a country that the US has a tax treaty with, you likely won't have to pay taxes. However, dual citizens who live abroad are still required to file with the IRS - even if they don't earn any money in the US or own property there, or ever visit. You still have to file even if you don't earn any income, or owe any taxes. A lot of people didn't know this or didn't bother.

In the wake of the financial crisis in 2007-2008 the IRS became much more aggressive with dual citizens who live abroad and don't file tax returns. Prior to that they didn't really go after people unless they had quite high networths. There are pretty hefty penalties associated with not filing (financial penalties, border crossing difficulties etc...). Not doing your FBAR filing for instance can get you a penalty of 10k a year.

A lot of the people the IRS started going after were dual citizens who left the US at a very young age, or who's parents had been US citizens, or who had been living abroad for ages and ages and figured they didn't need to file because they didn't owe taxes or didn't know they needed to.

The extra people aren't millionaires fleeing the country, it is ordinary people who don't owe taxes but got frightened off by an IRS nastygram. It's just that the millionaires make the news because their names are recognizable. There are for example, about a million Americans living in Canada. If even a small portion of them get spooked, you'll see a big jump in the number of renunciations.

The whole thing is part of a larger crack down on tax avoidance / tax evasion that has been going on since around 1998 (or even earlier if you count the Caribbean stuff in the 1980s).


Robert, you seem to know your stuff, so I'm a bit curious... given that the Constitution says that people are citizens of the US *and* of the state in which they reside, is it possible to renounce US citizenship but NOT state citizenship?

Sovereign Court

I'm a canuck, you'd have to ask an american lawyer :)

I can give it a shot though- Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 of the constitution gives the power to determine citizenship to Congress:

"To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

The 14th Amendment lists state citizenship after national citizenship, presumably state citizenship is subordinate or reliant on being a US citizen first.

I imagine the combination of those two things means that renouncing your citizenship under the Immigration and Nationality Act will have the effect of wiping out your state citizenship.

On top of that, in order to renounce you have to be in a foreign country. Renouncing in the US has no effect, and renouncing with the intent of living in the US has no effect unless you become a citizen of another country and apply to live in the US on a VISA of some sort:

"The U.S. Department of State has concluded that the intention to relinquish U.S. nationality required for purposes of finding loss of nationality under Section 349(a) of the INA does not exist where a renunciant plans or claims a right to continue to reside in the United States, unless the renunciant demonstrates that residence will be as an alien documented properly under U.S. law."


Kryzbyn wrote:

Article posted by Yahoo! today suggests more and more people with incomes over 1 million are renouncing their citizenships to avoid the larger percentage of their income that is being taken in taxes.

Link

.

1. If by "more and more" you mean 3 more then probably.

2. I bet you a million dollars you will never have to worry about if
you should expatriate to avoid paying more tax.

.

Sovereign Court

There was however, a pretty dramatic increase in US companies expatriating (or inverting or re-incorporating) in tax havens between 1990 and 2002 or so that the Yahoo article doesn't mention. There was an act passed in 2004 to put a stop to that, I think it was the American Jobs Creation Act.


.

Haha.. and then there was Enron proving acts are useless; and Apple
manufacturing all it products in China whilst Americans search loose
cushions for change to buy them.

Mom: "Get a job son!"

Son: "I don't know how."

.


Robert Hawkshaw wrote:

I'm a canuck, you'd have to ask an american lawyer :)

I can give it a shot though- Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 of the constitution gives the power to determine citizenship to Congress:

"To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

The 14th Amendment lists state citizenship after national citizenship, presumably state citizenship is subordinate or reliant on being a US citizen first.

I imagine the combination of those two things means that renouncing your citizenship under the Immigration and Nationality Act will have the effect of wiping out your state citizenship.

On top of that, in order to renounce you have to be in a foreign country. Renouncing in the US has no effect, and renouncing with the intent of living in the US has no effect unless you become a citizen of another country and apply to live in the US on a VISA of some sort:

"The U.S. Department of State has concluded that the intention to relinquish U.S. nationality required for purposes of finding loss of nationality under Section 349(a) of the INA does not exist where a renunciant plans or claims a right to continue to reside in the United States, unless the renunciant demonstrates that residence will be as an alien documented properly under U.S. law."

Thanks!


.

I certainly wouldn't move to Canada.

.

Sovereign Court

Become a citizen, start a small business, our corporate tax rate for canadian small businesses is like 11% (that's total, provincial and federal tax). Our normal corporate tax rate is lower. No estate tax. Strong banks. No looming debt crisis. Working health care.

Just you know, naturalize, and don't vote like a crazy person. :)


Robert Hawkshaw wrote:
Unskilled Troll is Unskilled wrote:

Well, you sure came to the right place for an intelligent, well-informed answer to the question.

Oh wait...no you didn't. You came to a website about gaming to ask an extremely data-dependent question, which is well outside the expertise of anyone here. Here, let me provide you with a link to the sum total of the knowledge of the community residents on the topic:

Link

If you need further information, I recommend checking this website:

Link

I'm actually finishing up an LL.M. with a focus on international tax law and tax havens specifically so.... :)

I, too, am a lawyer with a vast experience in expatriating rich people...

Vive le Galt!


Yeah, it's kinda funny that so many down here think of Canada as being more socialist than the US. That may be true in regards to the healthcare system, but overall Canada's now higher on indexes of economic freedom than the US is.

The Exchange

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Gotta tax the rich, punish them some of us say, because others "deserve" the money. nothing wrong with that plan.....

I sometimes lose the details in the big picture, but:

So, they raised taxes on everyone, mostly to service the national debt, which, I could have sworn, was caused mostly by the bailouts under both Bush and Obama. (Well, the wars, too, but let's leave that aside for a moment.)

So, the banksters cause the economy to crash, then get bailed out with money borrowed from--guess who?--the banks, and then demand raising taxes and cuts to social spending to pay back the debt to, yup, themselves, and this is somehow punishing the rich?

Bank bailouts being wrong aside obama has made a central platform out of tax the rich "fair share" class warfare.

The Exchange

Derek Vande Brake wrote:
Yeah, it's kinda funny that so many down here think of Canada as being more socialist than the US. That may be true in regards to the healthcare system, but overall Canada's now higher on indexes of economic freedom than the US is.

Soon to have more gun rights too if this keeps up


Grand Magus wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Article posted by Yahoo! today suggests more and more people with incomes over 1 million are renouncing their citizenships to avoid the larger percentage of their income that is being taken in taxes.

Link

.

1. If by "more and more" you mean 3 more then probably.

2. I bet you a million dollars you will never have to worry about if
you should expatriate to avoid paying more tax.

.

1. Sorry for posting something to spark discussion.

2. That's rather condescending and uncalled for. But hey, thanks.

Sovereign Court

There is a pretty large volume of work on tax competition (states using tax rates to attract residents / business) out there.

There are problems with his model, but Tiebout is a good place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiebout_model

There is also a heavily cited survey type article available here: (let me know if the pdf works - I'm at a university so I can download it no problems, but it might not work off campus).
http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/cuffk/wilson.pdf


Derek Vande Brake wrote:
Yeah, it's kinda funny that so many down here think of Canada as being more socialist than the US. That may be true in regards to the healthcare system, but overall Canada's now higher on indexes of economic freedom than the US is.

Well, we europeans certainly think of Canada as much more... umm.. normal than US.

the economic freedom index is perhaps misleading wrt socialism as Hong Kong (aka part of China) is currently on top.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Derek Vande Brake wrote:
Robert, you seem to know your stuff, so I'm a bit curious... given that the Constitution says that people are citizens of the US *and* of the state in which they reside, is it possible to renounce US citizenship but NOT state citizenship?

You're not a citizen of your state. State citzenships went the way of the dodo when the Articles of Confederacy were replaced by the Constitution. You're a citizen of the country. You may be a part time or full time resident of it though, and that counts for electoral and taxation purposes.


Andrew R wrote:
Derek Vande Brake wrote:
Yeah, it's kinda funny that so many down here think of Canada as being more socialist than the US. That may be true in regards to the healthcare system, but overall Canada's now higher on indexes of economic freedom than the US is.
Soon to have more gun rights too if this keeps up

Well, we need our guns up here. You know, because of all the Polar Bears.


randomwalker wrote:
Derek Vande Brake wrote:
Yeah, it's kinda funny that so many down here think of Canada as being more socialist than the US. That may be true in regards to the healthcare system, but overall Canada's now higher on indexes of economic freedom than the US is.

Well, we europeans certainly think of Canada as much more... umm.. normal than US.

the economic freedom index is perhaps misleading wrt socialism as Hong Kong (aka part of China) is currently on top.

Or perhaps "economic freedom" isn't in such opposition to socialism as one might think at first glance?


Not to go too far into this tangent but...

Well, first - Hong Kong is a special economic zone within China. It's part of China, but they don't use all the same rules that the rest of China does. There's less state control all around. (Which is why Hong Kong is listed separately from the rest of China on said indexes.) Also, China has been growing more and more capitalistic... though more in the cities than in the country, and they still do a heck of a lot of state-owned production.

Also, there are kind of two elements to economic freedom. One is the redistribution and social safety net stuff people tend to think of, the other is regulation, and ease of starting businesses. From what I understand (and this is admittedly not something I have researched myself), a lot of the more socialist countries in Europe have low barriers to business entry compared to the supposedly more capitalistic nations of the western world, like Germany or the US.


Andrew R wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Gotta tax the rich, punish them some of us say, because others "deserve" the money. nothing wrong with that plan.....

I sometimes lose the details in the big picture, but:

So, they raised taxes on everyone, mostly to service the national debt, which, I could have sworn, was caused mostly by the bailouts under both Bush and Obama. (Well, the wars, too, but let's leave that aside for a moment.)

So, the banksters cause the economy to crash, then get bailed out with money borrowed from--guess who?--the banks, and then demand raising taxes and cuts to social spending to pay back the debt to, yup, themselves, and this is somehow punishing the rich?

Bank bailouts being wrong aside obama has made a central platform out of tax the rich "fair share" class warfare.

Well, everyone knows I hate Obama, but I still don't understand how raising taxes on the rich (and everybody else) so that the government can pay back their debts--to the rich--is class warfare.


thejeff wrote:
randomwalker wrote:
Derek Vande Brake wrote:
Yeah, it's kinda funny that so many down here think of Canada as being more socialist than the US. That may be true in regards to the healthcare system, but overall Canada's now higher on indexes of economic freedom than the US is.

Well, we europeans certainly think of Canada as much more... umm.. normal than US.

the economic freedom index is perhaps misleading wrt socialism as Hong Kong (aka part of China) is currently on top.

Or perhaps "economic freedom" isn't in such opposition to socialism as one might think at first glance?

Or maybe Canada isn't socialist at all.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's the Dominion of Canada to you gobbo! Or the Dominion for short.

Since we are becoming an oil-ocracy we've got to dust off the older more sinister sounding name.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Gotta tax the rich, punish them some of us say, because others "deserve" the money. nothing wrong with that plan.....

I sometimes lose the details in the big picture, but:

So, they raised taxes on everyone, mostly to service the national debt, which, I could have sworn, was caused mostly by the bailouts under both Bush and Obama. (Well, the wars, too, but let's leave that aside for a moment.)

So, the banksters cause the economy to crash, then get bailed out with money borrowed from--guess who?--the banks, and then demand raising taxes and cuts to social spending to pay back the debt to, yup, themselves, and this is somehow punishing the rich?

Bank bailouts being wrong aside obama has made a central platform out of tax the rich "fair share" class warfare.
Well, everyone knows I hate Obama, but I still don't understand how raising taxes on the rich (and everybody else) so that the government can pay back their debts--to the rich--is class warfare.

One must remember it was the rich who crashed the economy.


A highly regarded expert wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Gotta tax the rich, punish them some of us say, because others "deserve" the money. nothing wrong with that plan.....

I sometimes lose the details in the big picture, but:

So, they raised taxes on everyone, mostly to service the national debt, which, I could have sworn, was caused mostly by the bailouts under both Bush and Obama. (Well, the wars, too, but let's leave that aside for a moment.)

So, the banksters cause the economy to crash, then get bailed out with money borrowed from--guess who?--the banks, and then demand raising taxes and cuts to social spending to pay back the debt to, yup, themselves, and this is somehow punishing the rich?

Bank bailouts being wrong aside obama has made a central platform out of tax the rich "fair share" class warfare.
Well, everyone knows I hate Obama, but I still don't understand how raising taxes on the rich (and everybody else) so that the government can pay back their debts--to the rich--is class warfare.
One must remember it was the rich who crashed the economy.

And started the class warfare.

Not that a 4% increase on the top rate, along with a 2% (SS rebate) increase on the rest of us, really even qualifies, especially considering the decades of tax cuts they've benefited from.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
A highly regarded expert wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Gotta tax the rich, punish them some of us say, because others "deserve" the money. nothing wrong with that plan.....

I sometimes lose the details in the big picture, but:

So, they raised taxes on everyone, mostly to service the national debt, which, I could have sworn, was caused mostly by the bailouts under both Bush and Obama. (Well, the wars, too, but let's leave that aside for a moment.)

So, the banksters cause the economy to crash, then get bailed out with money borrowed from--guess who?--the banks, and then demand raising taxes and cuts to social spending to pay back the debt to, yup, themselves, and this is somehow punishing the rich?

Bank bailouts being wrong aside obama has made a central platform out of tax the rich "fair share" class warfare.
Well, everyone knows I hate Obama, but I still don't understand how raising taxes on the rich (and everybody else) so that the government can pay back their debts--to the rich--is class warfare.
One must remember it was the rich who crashed the economy.

The rich were the ones who gave loans to people who couldn't repay them, sure. On the other hand, the people getting those loans are also to blame for accepting them. And the politicians are to blame for giving incentives to rich people to give loans to poor people who couldn't afford it, and for bailing out the banks who did it later, creating a moral hazard for future problems. There's a lot of fingers to point, and blaming the rich for all the problem is just silly.


Derek Vande Brake wrote:
The rich were the ones who gave loans to people who couldn't repay them, sure.

And made billions swapping around toxic CDOs.

Not all of the rich are politicians, but the overwhelming majority of politicians are rich, so I think blaming the rich is sufficient enough. If you want to throw in the politicians, too, I've got no problem with that.


Derek Vande Brake wrote:
A highly regarded expert wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Gotta tax the rich, punish them some of us say, because others "deserve" the money. nothing wrong with that plan.....

I sometimes lose the details in the big picture, but:

So, they raised taxes on everyone, mostly to service the national debt, which, I could have sworn, was caused mostly by the bailouts under both Bush and Obama. (Well, the wars, too, but let's leave that aside for a moment.)

So, the banksters cause the economy to crash, then get bailed out with money borrowed from--guess who?--the banks, and then demand raising taxes and cuts to social spending to pay back the debt to, yup, themselves, and this is somehow punishing the rich?

Bank bailouts being wrong aside obama has made a central platform out of tax the rich "fair share" class warfare.
Well, everyone knows I hate Obama, but I still don't understand how raising taxes on the rich (and everybody else) so that the government can pay back their debts--to the rich--is class warfare.
One must remember it was the rich who crashed the economy.
The rich were the ones who gave loans to people who couldn't repay them, sure. On the other hand, the people getting those loans are also to blame for accepting them. And the politicians are to blame for giving incentives to rich people to give loans to poor people who couldn't afford it, and for bailing out the banks who did it later, creating a moral hazard for future problems. There's a lot of fingers to point, and blaming the rich for all the problem is just silly.

They set up the game. They made the rules. They got the tax codes changed so it was worth trashing the economy and potentially your own company in exchange for a couple of years worth of outrageous bonuses.

Everyone knew that housing was a safe investment. That real estate prices always went up. If you couldn't afford the payments, you could always refinance. Everyone was lied to.
They ran a Ponzi scheme on a national scale and got away with it. Walked off with the cash. Even made side bets so they'd profit when it all came crashing down.

The rest of us were conned. Yeah there's some blame to go around for that, but you laugh at the suckers who bought in to the con game while you throw the guy running it in jail.


Okay, fine, Comrade Jeff, that was a better response than mine.


More class war.

Which might be a little more effective if they didn't misspell "Adversaries" in the subheading, but, pfft, whatever.

1 to 50 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Is expatriating becomming popular? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.