6 ms·
The worldwide tax law sucks even more for an individual. And it makes absolutely no sense when you’re not even a citizen!
by jitix 9y ago
The worldwide tax law sucks even more for an individual. And it makes absolutely no sense when you’re not even a citizen!
- kinkrtyavimoodh 9y agoIf you are not a citizen, you can at least avoid it if you are not staying in the US, as you'd be a non-resident for tax purposes. But if you are a non-citizen who is a resident for tax purposes, then yeah you are out of luck.
- jitix 9y agoYeah the latter sucks because as a resident I can’t even start a business here. I have to jump through hooves like Estonia’s e-residency program to just publish an app.
- tizzdogg 9y agoThe expression is "jump through hoops". Sorry to nitpick.
- jsjohnst 9y agoHoopes (yes, a misspelling) gets autocorrected to hooves for me, so could’ve been a typo and not that they didn’t know the expression.
- RHSeeger 9y agoProbably because the word is "hoops", without the "e"; the plural of "hoop". ^ Not meant as sarcasm, just noting the possible reason the spellchecker gets confused.
- jsjohnst 9y agoRight, but if you notice, the e and the s are adjoining keys on most common keyboards. Apologies if my wording was confusing, but I didn’t call out the es as the OP misspelling the pluralization, but rather specifically as a typo. My mention of misspelling was there only to prevent another person from pointing it out, but alas, I still failed it seems.
- jitix 9y agodamn autocorrect! jumping through literal hooves would be hilarious.. lol
- sjg007 9y agoUS corporations are citizens except that they just can't vote... but they can contribute unlimited campaign contributions.
- c3534l 9y ago> US corporations are citizens No they're not. You're confusing the already commonly-confused concept of legal personhood with citizenship. > but they can contribute unlimited campaign contributions Citizens United ruled that actual human beings had the right to make unlimited campaign contributions and that the right to do so could not be rescinded just because those flesh-and-blood individuals decided to pool their money into a corporation. People have the right to organize for political action and congress cannot take that away.
- breatheoften 9y agoThis is so beyond the pale as to be far beyond the realm of logical discussion. If I have pooled my 'right of personhoop' contributions into a corporate asset base and thus absolved myself of liability laws regarding the disposition of this asset base -- what basis do I have to have to claim 'my' personhood rights over how this asset base is distributed to political campaigns? If what you say is _actually_ true then it should be illegal for corporations to disperse campaign funds in anything other than an amount that _exactly_ reflects the relative ownership amount of every single stockholder in that corporation -- otherwise an individual shareholder's claim on the percentage of personhood ownership of the corporation has been rescinded.
- c3534l 9y agoI have no problem limiting campaign contributions and certain political activities. The constitution does, though. The law generally likes to treat corporations as separate from their owners, but no such notion exists in the constitution. And if it comes to a question of constitutionality, then it doesn't matter that our laws limit the financial liability of a stockholder to his or her contribution because that's not a constitutional question.
- avip 9y agoTaxes are paid by "tax residence", not by "citizenship". If you live in the US, I bet you enjoy all the greatness of public schools, transportation, legal system, well preserved natural reserves... you should pay for that. This thread was about US citizens living abroad, which is a whole different issue.