3 ms·

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 c

by 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".
  - gozur88 11y ago
    I'm curious to know what you thought I meant by "(new)" in this sentence: "As far as I'm concerned, when you renounce your citizenship you no longer have the obligation to pay (new) US taxes regardless of what the US government thinks."

by dalke 11y ago

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".
- gozur88 11y ago
  I'm curious to know what you thought I meant by "(new)" in this sentence: "As far as I'm concerned, when you renounce your citizenship you no longer have the obligation to pay (new) US taxes regardless of what the US government thinks."