3 ms·

The law also doesn't care what you think in this matter. That's the sticky point. Your last comment is a non sequitur. You originally wrote "the people renounc

by dalke 11y ago

The law also doesn't care what you think in this matter. That's the sticky point. Your last comment is a non sequitur. You originally wrote "the people renouncing might be the people who do owe additional tax". My comments are all about that conjecture. The people who continue to file income tax statements even decades after living in the US are not in the category of "people renouncing" or "owe additional tax".

gozur88 11y ago
>The law also doesn't care what you think in this matter. That's the sticky point. US law is irrelevant. US law only applies in the US, whatever Congress thinks. If I'm not in the US and I'm not a US citizen, the US government can pound sand. I'm always curious why Americans expect the US to have jurisdiction everywhere on the planet and yet don't expect other countries to make laws affecting them. >Your last comment is a non sequitur. You originally wrote "the people renouncing might be the people who do owe additional tax". My comments are all about that conjecture. Yes, people who owe additional tax. That's what I was talking about. People who are expected to pay taxes to the US government even though they don't live in the US and haven't for many years. What is it you're talking about? >The people who continue to file income tax statements even decades after living in the US are not in the category of "people renouncing" or "owe additional tax". Yes, those are the people. Who else would you expect was doing this?
- dalke 11y ago
  If you don't expatriate and live overseas then the US laws are equally irrelevant, regarding any previously owed taxes. That's my point. Expatriation doesn't change anything concerning taxes you already owe. > Who else would you expect was doing this? Hmm. Perhaps I have confused your meaning. I thought this whole time you mean people who owe taxes, don't want to pay taxes, and expatriate to try to avoid paying those taxes. Do you mean people who will in the future need to pay taxes, and expatriate in order to avoid future obligations? If so, then I was confused because these people don't yet owe anything. FWIW, I file US taxes every year, having lived in Sweden for nearly 10 years. I've only once owed any taxes. The Foreign Earned Income Exclusion is, after all, $100,800 . Since that's well above the average income, I expect that many people who expatriate won't ever owe any future taxes.
  - gozur88 11y ago
    >Hmm. Perhaps I have confused your meaning. I thought this whole time you mean people who owe taxes, don't want to pay taxes, and expatriate to try to avoid paying those taxes. >Do you mean people who will in the future need to pay taxes, and expatriate in order to avoid future obligations? Yes, I mean the latter. If you rack of legal debts (of any sort) as a citizen, IMO you should pay. Part of the naturalization process in most countries is a check to see that you're not some kind of criminal and that you've tied up all the financial loose ends in the country of your birth. My problem is that Congress assumes jurisdiction over your actions and finances if you were ever a citizen. It used to be widely recognized in international law that the laws of a country only applied on the soil of that country and on ships traveling in international waters under that country's flag. If you traveled to a different country you were under the jurisdiction of that country's laws. So as a citizen of the US, if I moved to Germany, say, even though I was a US citizen I could do things that are illegal in the US as long as they're legal in Germany. And I couldn't do things that were illegal in Germany even if they're legal in the US. This all seems like common sense. But it's changed in recent decades, as countries are punishing citizens for things they do elsewhere, e.g. Swedes, who are breaking Swedish law if they patronize a prostitute even in another country where it's perfectly legal. I think this kind of overlapping jurisdiction is a terrible idea, but whatever. The idea you fall under a country's law even if you become a citizen of another country and renounce the citizenship of your birth is a bridge too far. As far as I know most countries won't extradite a citizen (even a naturalized citizen) for that sort of thing. The US government presumes to tax your (new) income for ten years after you've renounced your citizenship, even if you had no outstanding tax debt at the time of renunciation. There's also a one-time 40% tax on assets held in the US, which I find less objectionable but still pretty damn objectionable.
    - dalke 11y ago
      "Yes, I mean the latter." I think you can see my confusion as you originally wrote: "the people renouncing might be the people who do owe additional tax" This is in the present tense, meaning people who currently owe taxes, which is different from those "who will in the future need to pay taxes".

by dalke 11y ago

gozur88 11y ago

>The law also doesn't care what you think in this matter. That's the sticky point. US law is irrelevant. US law only applies in the US, whatever Congress thinks. If I'm not in the US and I'm not a US citizen, the US government can pound sand. I'm always curious why Americans expect the US to have jurisdiction everywhere on the planet and yet don't expect other countries to make laws affecting them. >Your last comment is a non sequitur. You originally wrote "the people renouncing might be the people who do owe additional tax". My comments are all about that conjecture. Yes, people who owe additional tax. That's what I was talking about. People who are expected to pay taxes to the US government even though they don't live in the US and haven't for many years. What is it you're talking about? >The people who continue to file income tax statements even decades after living in the US are not in the category of "people renouncing" or "owe additional tax". Yes, those are the people. Who else would you expect was doing this?

dalke 11y ago
If you don't expatriate and live overseas then the US laws are equally irrelevant, regarding any previously owed taxes. That's my point. Expatriation doesn't change anything concerning taxes you already owe. > Who else would you expect was doing this? Hmm. Perhaps I have confused your meaning. I thought this whole time you mean people who owe taxes, don't want to pay taxes, and expatriate to try to avoid paying those taxes. Do you mean people who will in the future need to pay taxes, and expatriate in order to avoid future obligations? If so, then I was confused because these people don't yet owe anything. FWIW, I file US taxes every year, having lived in Sweden for nearly 10 years. I've only once owed any taxes. The Foreign Earned Income Exclusion is, after all, $100,800 . Since that's well above the average income, I expect that many people who expatriate won't ever owe any future taxes.
- gozur88 11y ago
  >Hmm. Perhaps I have confused your meaning. I thought this whole time you mean people who owe taxes, don't want to pay taxes, and expatriate to try to avoid paying those taxes. >Do you mean people who will in the future need to pay taxes, and expatriate in order to avoid future obligations? Yes, I mean the latter. If you rack of legal debts (of any sort) as a citizen, IMO you should pay. Part of the naturalization process in most countries is a check to see that you're not some kind of criminal and that you've tied up all the financial loose ends in the country of your birth. My problem is that Congress assumes jurisdiction over your actions and finances if you were ever a citizen. It used to be widely recognized in international law that the laws of a country only applied on the soil of that country and on ships traveling in international waters under that country's flag. If you traveled to a different country you were under the jurisdiction of that country's laws. So as a citizen of the US, if I moved to Germany, say, even though I was a US citizen I could do things that are illegal in the US as long as they're legal in Germany. And I couldn't do things that were illegal in Germany even if they're legal in the US. This all seems like common sense. But it's changed in recent decades, as countries are punishing citizens for things they do elsewhere, e.g. Swedes, who are breaking Swedish law if they patronize a prostitute even in another country where it's perfectly legal. I think this kind of overlapping jurisdiction is a terrible idea, but whatever. The idea you fall under a country's law even if you become a citizen of another country and renounce the citizenship of your birth is a bridge too far. As far as I know most countries won't extradite a citizen (even a naturalized citizen) for that sort of thing. The US government presumes to tax your (new) income for ten years after you've renounced your citizenship, even if you had no outstanding tax debt at the time of renunciation. There's also a one-time 40% tax on assets held in the US, which I find less objectionable but still pretty damn objectionable.
  - dalke 11y ago
    "Yes, I mean the latter." I think you can see my confusion as you originally wrote: "the people renouncing might be the people who do owe additional tax" This is in the present tense, meaning people who currently owe taxes, which is different from those "who will in the future need to pay taxes".