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.
| 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:
If you need further information, I recommend checking this website:
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.
So when do they put up the valley wide cloaking device?
Can... Can their ship fire when cloaked? Because if it can were doomed.
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.
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.
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.
|
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:
If you need further information, I recommend checking this website:
I'm actually finishing up an LL.M. with a focus on international tax law and tax havens specifically so.... :)
|
|
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.
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):
(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)
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.
|
|
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?
|
|
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."
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.
.
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.
.
.
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."
.
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.
.
|
|
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. :)
I'm actually finishing up an LL.M. with a focus on international tax law and tax havens specifically so.... :)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:
If you need further information, I recommend checking this website:
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.
|
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.
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.
.
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.|
|
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
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.
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.
Bank bailouts being wrong aside obama has made a central platform out of tax the rich "fair share" class warfare.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?
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.
Or perhaps "economic freedom" isn't in such opposition to socialism as one might think at first glance?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 maybe Canada isn't socialist at all.
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.Bank bailouts being wrong aside obama has made a central platform out of tax the rich "fair share" class warfare.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?
One must remember it was the rich who crashed the economy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One must remember it was the rich who crashed the economy.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.Bank bailouts being wrong aside obama has made a central platform out of tax the rich "fair share" class warfare.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?
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.
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.
Okay, fine, Comrade Jeff, that was a better response than mine.
Which might be a little more effective if they didn't misspell "Adversaries" in the subheading, but, pfft, whatever.