4 ms·
That’s a really good point. According to https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/nonusresidenttax.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/nonusresid
by marcoperaza 9y ago
That’s a really good point. According to https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/nonusresidenttax.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/nonusresidenttax... , non-resident aliens are taxed on dividends from American companies, but not for capital gains.
Would we be changing any important incentives by leaving untaxed that portion of corporate income responsible for foreigners’ appreciation? Otherwise, it doesn’t seem like a very significant source of revenue.
- AstralStorm 9y agoYou say in excess of 100 million USD is not a significant source of revenue. I hope this is due to ignorance. It is more than the budget of some rich countries. Taxation on foreign individuals is a thing done all the time with duties.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- marcoperaza 9y agoAbsolute amounts are not very useful for making tax policy. If it represents a tiny portion of federal receipts, and doesn’t serve to prevent some end-run around other parts of the tax law or other perverse incentives, there seems to be a weak case for maintaining a tax policy that causes all sorts of other undesirable outcomes.