Last year, Schumer and Casey came up with a bill in response to Eduardo Saverin renouncing his US citizneship to escape taxation. That bill, the Expatriate act, never went anywhere. Leap forward to today, and these two have added an amendment to the immigration bill to achieve their objective:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r1...nSkpxe:e0:

Quote:Quote:

SA 1233. Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. SCHUMER, and Mr. CASEY) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 744, to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. INADMISSIBILITY OF INDIVIDUALS WHO RENOUNCE CITIZENSHIP TO AVOID TAXES.

Section 212(a)(10)(E) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(10)(E)) is amended to read as follows:

``(E) FORMER CITIZENS WHO RENOUNCED CITIZENSHIP TO AVOID TAXATION.--

``(i) INADMISSIBILITY.--The following aliens are inadmissible:

``(I) Any alien who is a former citizen of the United States who officially renounces United States citizenship and who is determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security to have renounced United States citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxation by the United States.

``(II) Subject to clause (ii), any alien who is a former citizen of the United States and who is a covered expatriate.

``(ii) REVIEW FOR COVERED EXPATRIATES.--A covered expatriate shall not be inadmissible under clause (i)(II) if the Secretary determines that the covered expatriate has established by clear and convincing evidence that avoiding taxation by the United States was not one of the principle purposes that the covered expatriate renounced United States citizenship.

``(iii) COVERED EXPATRIATE DEFINED.--In this subparagraph, the term `covered expatriate' means an individual described in section 877A(g)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and to whom section 877A(a) of such Code applies.''.

So basically, if you fear that massive immigration will burden our welfare system and lead to massive tax increases/austerity to avoid calamity, and want to escape the American tax burden by expatriation, you can never visit America again. Of course, this only applies if you're rich, but then thats the whole point of expatraition, if you make enough money for it to be worthwhile.

Who does Schumer think the Govt is? God? "Obey the state and pay taxes, or ye shall never return to the kingdom of America!"

You'd think they'd give us a reason to stay here.

Hope they change "principle" to "principal." My God, illiteracy even among legislative drafters.

Spite, anyone?

IIRC, the USA also taxes based upon citizenship, not residency like most nations do, so you can be double taxed abroad even if you never intend to return. The IRS has been kind enough to realize the problems inherent with double taxation abroad so they have a form where you can write off up to ca. $100,000 of overseas income if you reside in a foreign country. But if you earn anything above that amount, you will be taxed by both the IRS and the country where you reside. This can be quite a large problem if you live in a very high tax nation like those in Western Europe where making over $100k per year could lead to paying over 100% of your income above the limit in combined US/European taxes.

TL;DR The US government thinks that all Americans need to pay "their rightful share", even if they have no intention of returning to the USA.

Quote: (06-23-2013 08:53 AM)Icepasian Wrote:  

IIRC, the USA also taxes based upon citizenship, not residency like most nations do, so you can be double taxed abroad even if you never intend to return. The IRS has been kind enough to realize the problems inherent with double taxation abroad so they have a form where you can write off up to ca. $100,000 of overseas income if you reside in a foreign country. But if you earn anything above that amount, you will be taxed by both the IRS and the country where you reside. This can be quite a large problem if you live in a very high tax nation like those in Western Europe where making over $100k per year could lead to paying over 100% of your income above the limit in combined US/European taxes.

TL;DR The US government thinks that all Americans need to pay "their rightful share", even if they have no intention of returning to the USA.

That is why we have tax treaties.

I don't agree with the US policy of taxation based on citizenship. If you didn't earn the money here, and you're not a recipient of US government services, and you don't live here, you shouldn't be obligated to pay.

OTOH, the Facebook guy did live here, he was the recipient of government services (sorry, but unless you live in a 3rd world nation with no functioning government, you are the recipient of some kind of government service), and the bulk of his money was earned in the US. He renounced his citizenship. If things were so bad here that you decide you have to renounce your citizenship, then fuck you, I don't want you here.

This is nothing compared to the desperate tax squeezes and capital controls the US is going to engage in as the welfare state and fiat money system falls apart

Quote: (06-23-2013 06:49 AM)Exactaking Wrote:  

So basically, if you fear that massive immigration will burden our welfare system and lead to massive tax increases/austerity to avoid calamity, and want to escape the American tax burden by expatriation, you can never visit America again.

So we leave because the US is shit and the price we pay is that we can't come back?

I told you guys on another thread. It's too late. The wheels have long been in motion. You're stuck here, so quit bitching.

Quote: (06-23-2013 03:18 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  

I don't agree with the US policy of taxation based on citizenship. If you didn't earn the money here, and you're not a recipient of US government services, and you don't live here, you shouldn't be obligated to pay.

Exactly, I don't even know how is this even debatable. This policy is so insane. I'm not American but I do live and work in the US, as such I pay taxes here, which is rightful, but it wouldn't even cross my mind to pay taxes in my former home country, why would I? I'm not working or living there.

Quote: (06-23-2013 03:18 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  

OTOH, the Facebook guy did live here, he was the recipient of government services (sorry, but unless you live in a 3rd world nation with no functioning government, you are the recipient of some kind of government service), and the bulk of his money was earned in the US. He renounced his citizenship. If things were so bad here that you decide you have to renounce your citizenship, then fuck you, I don't want you here.

I also agree with you here, but to be honest I think I would have done the exact same thing if I had turned into a billionaire overnight and wanted to protect my money from predatory tax policies. And really, if the US forbids someone from ever entering its borders but this someone is a billionaire, would this person really care, unless he is very patriotic? There are many places to live in this planet that are much better than the US when you're a billionaire.

Porscheguy typical liberal speak. As if the guy doesn't have a right to the money he earned because the govt spent money without his consent on shit he doesn't need nor uses.

That's a great argument. Where's the logical conclusion to that? The govt can take his firstborn since he was forced to use services or products they spent his past taxes on?

You're always throwing out gems.

Quote: (06-23-2013 05:53 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

Porscheguy typical liberal speak. As if the guy doesn't have a right to the money he earned because the govt spent money without his consent on shit he doesn't need nor uses.

That's a great argument. Where's the logical conclusion to that? The govt can take his firstborn since he was forced to use services or products they spent his past taxes on?

You're always throwing out gems.

I think you're exaggerating a bit what he said, and even though I agree in part with you, if you take that argument further you'll go down the path of no taxation at all, since you have no control over the way the government spends your money. You could always argue, why should I pay since I can't choose how to spend it? I know libertarians like that idea but where would a system like that ultimately lead a country? I suppose we can debate ideologies, and libertarianism certainly have some valid ideas, like any other ideology, but I, for one, am not of the opinion that you shouldn't pay anything at all.

Yes, governments are corrupt and inefficient, just like any other human construction, and we shouldn't even trust them, but you still need them, no? Or else you wouldn't have a country, would you?

I don't think the problem is that governments themselves exist but how badly run they are.

A functioning govt is necessary, it's all a matter of what that govts responsibilities are or should be.

Quote: (06-24-2013 10:58 AM)Fisto Wrote:  

A functioning govt is necessary, it's all a matter of what that govts responsibilities are or should be.

The guv is just making sure that if citizen's leave the borders, their money stays here.

Goodbye Ex Post Facto, it was a good ride.

Quote: (06-24-2013 11:04 AM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

Quote: (06-24-2013 10:58 AM)Fisto Wrote:  

A functioning govt is necessary, it's all a matter of what that govts responsibilities are or should be.

The guv is just making sure that if citizen's leave the borders, their money stays here.

They are also making sure guys like Saverin never invest in America again.

Quote: (06-24-2013 04:10 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

Quote: (06-24-2013 11:04 AM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

Quote: (06-24-2013 10:58 AM)Fisto Wrote:  

A functioning govt is necessary, it's all a matter of what that govts responsibilities are or should be.

The guv is just making sure that if citizen's leave the borders, their money stays here.

They are also making sure guys like Saverin never invest in America again.

How are they doing that?