4 ms·

As a US citizen you're taxed even if you stop living in the US. In many states, you have to show proof of residency to vote, so there's taxation without represe

As a US citizen you're taxed even if you stop living in the US. In many states, you have to show proof of residency to vote, so there's taxation without representation. You have to renounce your US citizenship to stop being taxed on income you earn abroad.

wl 8y ago
There's nothing in the US constitution that prohibits taxation without representation.
- klipt 8y ago
  Obviously, otherwise all the non-citizens (e.g. green card holders) who pay taxes in the US would have to be allowed to vote too.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Not to mention the District of Columbia (which quite literally has "taxation without representation" on their license plate).
    - eesmith 8y ago
      And those disenfranchised due to criminal conviction.
    - gamblor956 8y ago
      Citizens in DC are allowed to vote in federal elections. However, per the Constitution itself, as a non-state DC is not entitled to a Congressperson or Senator unless the Constitution is amended. (It took a federal amendment for DC residents to get the right to vote in presidential elections, which in the US actually means the right to vote for representatives of the electoral college that actually elect the president. The amendment just gave DC electors.)
- SilasX 8y ago
  There's a lot in its existence's justification that does...
  - DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
    IANAL, so I'll just ask: has the SCOTUS made rulings that they justified based on the Declaration of Independence rather than the U.S. Constitution?
    - eesmith 8y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarationism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarationism . I also found http://www.members.tripod.com/candst/doisussc.htm http://www.members.tripod.com/candst/doisussc.htm which says "that there are at least 100 United States Supreme Court cases that mention the words "Declaration of Independence" somewhere in the dicta of that opinion. Yet, not one single case can be found where the authority for the holding in that case was the Declaration of independence."
- Gokenstein 8y ago
  You're telling me that an American lied about the reasons for going to war!? Next you're gonna tell me it was just a plot by wealthy white men to enrich themselves by subverting a foreign government.
sdinsn 8y ago
You can still vote if you live abroad. > so there's taxation without representation What does that have to do with the constitution?
pbarnes_1 8y ago
There's taxation without representation if you're a green card holder or many other visa types. That's not unconstitutional.
jkaplowitz 8y ago
I believe the Supreme Court has found a right to renounce citizenship, but they haven't yet found a right to do so for free. Maybe someone can plead for a poverty exception on constitutional grounds, but that wouldn't waive the fee for people who can afford it but find it offensive.
- eesmith 8y ago
  FWIW, from Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299 (1915) at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/239/299/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/239/299/ : > Citizenship is of tangible worth, but the possessor thereof may voluntarily renounce it even though Congress may not be able to arbitrarily impose such renunciation. On a tangent, it used to be very easy to give up citizenship. That same link says: > Marriage of an American woman with a foreigner is tantamount to voluntary expatriation, and Congress may, without exceeding its powers, make it so, as it has in fact done, by the Act of March 2, 1907. For example, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/338/491/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/338/491/ : > Held: she expatriated herself under the laws of the United States by her naturalization as an Italian citizen followed by her residence abroad or from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perez_v._Brownell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perez_v._Brownell , "the Supreme Court upheld an act of Congress which provided for revocation of citizenship as a consequence of voting in a foreign election. The precedent was repudiated nine years later in Afroyim v. Rusk". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk .
jsoc815 8y ago
> You have to renounce Or relinquish. There is a difference and people would be wise to know it. Also, I'm sure that US would argue that those living outside of its official/continental borders are still well "represented" by its military and consular forces, and as such should pay up. In a sense, the taxes as fees are "insurance premiums." Personally, I wish the issue had been addressed better than it was during the recent tax "reform" debate, but I knew better. There is no interest in giving up revenues and access to data.
- jkaplowitz 8y ago
  They've raised the relinquishment fee - i.e. the fee to get the State department to evaluate the relinquishment and issue a Certificate of Loss of Nationality - to match the renunciation fee. For this conversation the difference is therefore mostly moot, even if a few minor differences still remain in the consequences.
  - jsoc815 8y ago
    > For this conversation the difference is therefore mostly moot Perhaps you're correct, but I don't consider loss of entry a "minor" difference, my friend. That's why I suggest that people do the research and try to be a bit more precise. But yes, I was aware of the fee change. Also worth noting, since people like to quibble about numbers, that I've consistently heard that the list doesn't actually include everyone who has parted w/their citizenship or green card. So, the true numbers could be anyone's guess.
    - jkaplowitz 8y ago
      The minor differences I was referring to were between loss of citizenship by formal renunciation and loss of citizenship by performing one of the other potentially expatriating acts voluntarily and with intent to relinquish citizenship (making the potential expatriation into actual expatriation). Both of these paths cause a loss of right to enter the US. Neither one automatically bans re-entry if one otherwise qualifies to enter as an alien. I agree differences in these areas would be major. The minor differences I know of: formal renunciation specifically for the purpose of avoiding taxes makes one inadmissible, but this purpose is so hard to prove and enforce that only a very small number of people (I forget precisely but around 2-5) have ever been ensnared by it. Also, renunciants are ineligible to possess firearms in the US, even if they'd otherwise be in one of the nonresident alien categories which would be allowed to. Taking the wording of both of these provisions at face value, they don't apply to former citizens who relinquish but don't renounce. Courts probably haven't yet been asked to rule either way on this, but at the very least, I don't know a court ruling finding that all former citizens are covered by either provision.
wiredfool 8y ago
That's not how it works WRT voting. You show residency when you live in a location and register to vote. If you move overseas, you remain registered in the county/precinct where you were last a resident. You then vote in elections. I've got my ballot for the November elections, ready whenever I am. And as for taxes, If you live in a higher tax location, you're not going to pay anything to the US. If you earn under 100k, you aren't going to pay anything in the US. You do have to file a return tho, which is a pain.
gamblor956 8y ago
In many states, you have to show proof of residency to vote, so there's taxation without representation. Expats can vote in federal elections in the last state they were resident in (or born in). I'm not sure what jurisdiction they get to vote in if they've never lived in the US (i.e., foreign-born US citizens). Expats that lived in the US and intend to return to their former residence may also vote in state and local elections.

wl 8y ago

There's nothing in the US constitution that prohibits taxation without representation.

klipt 8y ago
Obviously, otherwise all the non-citizens (e.g. green card holders) who pay taxes in the US would have to be allowed to vote too.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Not to mention the District of Columbia (which quite literally has "taxation without representation" on their license plate).
  - eesmith 8y ago
    And those disenfranchised due to criminal conviction.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    Citizens in DC are allowed to vote in federal elections. However, per the Constitution itself, as a non-state DC is not entitled to a Congressperson or Senator unless the Constitution is amended. (It took a federal amendment for DC residents to get the right to vote in presidential elections, which in the US actually means the right to vote for representatives of the electoral college that actually elect the president. The amendment just gave DC electors.)
SilasX 8y ago
There's a lot in its existence's justification that does...
- DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
  IANAL, so I'll just ask: has the SCOTUS made rulings that they justified based on the Declaration of Independence rather than the U.S. Constitution?
  - eesmith 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarationism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarationism . I also found http://www.members.tripod.com/candst/doisussc.htm http://www.members.tripod.com/candst/doisussc.htm which says "that there are at least 100 United States Supreme Court cases that mention the words "Declaration of Independence" somewhere in the dicta of that opinion. Yet, not one single case can be found where the authority for the holding in that case was the Declaration of independence."
Gokenstein 8y ago
You're telling me that an American lied about the reasons for going to war!? Next you're gonna tell me it was just a plot by wealthy white men to enrich themselves by subverting a foreign government.

sdinsn 8y ago

You can still vote if you live abroad. > so there's taxation without representation What does that have to do with the constitution?

pbarnes_1 8y ago

There's taxation without representation if you're a green card holder or many other visa types. That's not unconstitutional.

jkaplowitz 8y ago

I believe the Supreme Court has found a right to renounce citizenship, but they haven't yet found a right to do so for free. Maybe someone can plead for a poverty exception on constitutional grounds, but that wouldn't waive the fee for people who can afford it but find it offensive.

eesmith 8y ago
FWIW, from Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299 (1915) at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/239/299/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/239/299/ : > Citizenship is of tangible worth, but the possessor thereof may voluntarily renounce it even though Congress may not be able to arbitrarily impose such renunciation. On a tangent, it used to be very easy to give up citizenship. That same link says: > Marriage of an American woman with a foreigner is tantamount to voluntary expatriation, and Congress may, without exceeding its powers, make it so, as it has in fact done, by the Act of March 2, 1907. For example, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/338/491/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/338/491/ : > Held: she expatriated herself under the laws of the United States by her naturalization as an Italian citizen followed by her residence abroad or from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perez_v._Brownell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perez_v._Brownell , "the Supreme Court upheld an act of Congress which provided for revocation of citizenship as a consequence of voting in a foreign election. The precedent was repudiated nine years later in Afroyim v. Rusk". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk .

jsoc815 8y ago

> You have to renounce Or relinquish. There is a difference and people would be wise to know it. Also, I'm sure that US would argue that those living outside of its official/continental borders are still well "represented" by its military and consular forces, and as such should pay up. In a sense, the taxes as fees are "insurance premiums." Personally, I wish the issue had been addressed better than it was during the recent tax "reform" debate, but I knew better. There is no interest in giving up revenues and access to data.

jkaplowitz 8y ago
They've raised the relinquishment fee - i.e. the fee to get the State department to evaluate the relinquishment and issue a Certificate of Loss of Nationality - to match the renunciation fee. For this conversation the difference is therefore mostly moot, even if a few minor differences still remain in the consequences.
- jsoc815 8y ago
  > For this conversation the difference is therefore mostly moot Perhaps you're correct, but I don't consider loss of entry a "minor" difference, my friend. That's why I suggest that people do the research and try to be a bit more precise. But yes, I was aware of the fee change. Also worth noting, since people like to quibble about numbers, that I've consistently heard that the list doesn't actually include everyone who has parted w/their citizenship or green card. So, the true numbers could be anyone's guess.
  - jkaplowitz 8y ago
    The minor differences I was referring to were between loss of citizenship by formal renunciation and loss of citizenship by performing one of the other potentially expatriating acts voluntarily and with intent to relinquish citizenship (making the potential expatriation into actual expatriation). Both of these paths cause a loss of right to enter the US. Neither one automatically bans re-entry if one otherwise qualifies to enter as an alien. I agree differences in these areas would be major. The minor differences I know of: formal renunciation specifically for the purpose of avoiding taxes makes one inadmissible, but this purpose is so hard to prove and enforce that only a very small number of people (I forget precisely but around 2-5) have ever been ensnared by it. Also, renunciants are ineligible to possess firearms in the US, even if they'd otherwise be in one of the nonresident alien categories which would be allowed to. Taking the wording of both of these provisions at face value, they don't apply to former citizens who relinquish but don't renounce. Courts probably haven't yet been asked to rule either way on this, but at the very least, I don't know a court ruling finding that all former citizens are covered by either provision.

wiredfool 8y ago

That's not how it works WRT voting. You show residency when you live in a location and register to vote. If you move overseas, you remain registered in the county/precinct where you were last a resident. You then vote in elections. I've got my ballot for the November elections, ready whenever I am. And as for taxes, If you live in a higher tax location, you're not going to pay anything to the US. If you earn under 100k, you aren't going to pay anything in the US. You do have to file a return tho, which is a pain.

gamblor956 8y ago

In many states, you have to show proof of residency to vote, so there's taxation without representation. Expats can vote in federal elections in the last state they were resident in (or born in). I'm not sure what jurisdiction they get to vote in if they've never lived in the US (i.e., foreign-born US citizens). Expats that lived in the US and intend to return to their former residence may also vote in state and local elections.