7 ms·

Taxes are for social services and benefit of the public. If you never experience those benefits and never use any social services, why should you be forced to p

by Shank 4y ago

Taxes are for social services and benefit of the public. If you never experience those benefits and never use any social services, why should you be forced to pay those taxes?

poyes99680 4y ago
> If you never experience those benefits and never use any social services, why should you be forced to pay those taxes? That describes way more people than overseas US citizens.
spywaregorilla 4y ago
Because you are reserving the right to obtain them with your citizenship? If you want to declare that you're not going to use them (abandoning your citizenship), you don't need to pay taxes.
- olliej 4y ago
  But you are being required to pay money to drop your citizenship, so it's a tax being charged to people who have no other interaction with the US.
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    Not much money and it's a controversial fee that is being reduced for the very same thinking that it is unreasonable
- TechBro8615 4y ago
  Then why should we give it back to you when you come back? If you could just turn your citizenship on and off with no penalty, it wouldn't be fair to the people who stay in the US if those who leave could just stop paying taxes and then come back whenever they want. And if things don't go well in the US, those who stayed are stuck but those who left have another option. So them not paying taxes to the US would be like having their cake and eating it too. They could leave and stop fulfilling all their obligations, but with the option to come back whenever.
  - hervature 4y ago
    Because that’s not how it works? If you give up your citizenship, it is irreversible. You’ll need to immigrate like you never were.
    - alwayslikethis 4y ago
      It's actually harder. I think when you apply for a visa, they'll make a special note if you once gave up your citizenship. Legislation to never admit entry to expatriates have been proposed before.
      - int_19h 4y ago
        It's not just when applying for visa; it comes up in all kinds of laws. For example, 18 USC § 922(d)(7): "It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person ... who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship" And yes, this is actively enforced as part of the federal background check system. Ironically, legal non-citizen residents can lawfully purchase firearms, even on a student or a work visa (although there are more hoops to jump through).
    - ilammy 4y ago
      Quite a lot of countries have a fast-track for restoring citizenship if you had one. Not on the “when you feel like it” basis, but often without onerous requirements of foreigner naturalization.
  - rcme 4y ago
    > Then why should we give it back to you when you come back? Because it's in the constitution, and changing that is very hard. That's the answer.
ericmay 4y ago
If I had to guess it’s about money laundering and general tax avoidance versus not getting services. If you make $100,000/year or so while abroad if I recall correctly you don’t owe any taxes. The US will also actually come save you, not that this is necessarily “worth the cost”.
- davchana 4y ago
  Department of state always semd bill (although most of the time doesn't persue it). I think one still need to file the return ( no owing) the tax return even under the threshold.
ilammy 4y ago
Arguably, US Navy power projection services are provided worldwide.
- olliej 4y ago
  I'd be interested in seeing how frequently the US government "saves" accidental Americans around the world.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - kube-system 4y ago
    If we’re talking about the navy’s power projection, the routine benefits are in reliable global trade, not random people being “saved”.
- to11mtm 4y ago
  FBOW Navy as well as AF/Army (At least in Europe and parts of Oceania) provide power protection that may or may not contribute to economic prosperity.
- theonething 4y ago
  Jessica Buchanan was sure glad she was a tax paying US citizen when she was kidnapped by Somali gangsters and rescued by a SEAL team.[0] I saw interviews about this and the Danish kidnap victim rescued with Ms. Buchanan said something to the effect of "the best thing that happened to me given this scenario was getting kidnapped with an American." Citizenship has its privileges. I've been an US expat and will likely be one in the future and have no problem with paying taxes as a citizen either here or abroad. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_of_Jessica_Buchanan_and_Poul_Hagen_Thisted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_of_Jessica_Buchanan_and...
bdcravens 4y ago
Should those without children be required to pay the school portion of property taxes?
- arcticbull 4y ago
  Sure, if they're residents. Not if they live in Mongolia where they're paying for Mongolian schools via Mongolian taxes. The real question you should be asking is why are you ok double-taxing non-resident citizens?
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Most school expenses come from local property taxes and most of the rest from state taxes. Very little comes from federal taxes.
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      Indeed, but I strongly suspect the parent was positioning this as a thought exercise. In that vein, do you think it's right for the town in which you lived right before moving abroad to charge you property taxes on a home you buy in a foreign country? What if there was an exemption on the first $250K in property value? After all you may one day return to your home town and they were providing bus service while you were gone... What about your home town charging you property taxes on the place you buy in the big city a few years after you move away for college? After all your family is still there and those schools won't fund themselves.
osullip 4y ago
Citizenship of all countries comes with some rules and expectations on the holder. In some cases it is national service, others it is a requirement to vote, in the U.S. case it is to declare and pay taxes. I would expect that most people like the idea of the option to live and work in the U.S. and keep their citizenship even if not residing there. I think it is a difficult call to renounce citizenship but if the tax requirements are onerous on the individual they are least have the choice.
- ramraj07 4y ago
  Citizenship of _some_ countries come with rules and expectations on the holder. As far as I can tell, if I leave India for good I don’t owe India anything after 1.5 years. That sounds correct.
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    Not exactly, you still have rules and expectations should you return that are not imposed on non-citizen visitors. They also may choose to, in the future, impose restrictions on you but these are (unless you're Uncle Sam) very difficult to enforce on expats.
  - davchana 4y ago
    True. Everything has up & downside. The downside of Indian Citizenship is you can't have two citizenships. (Although OCI card gives you almost every right except voting, gov jobs etc).
    - int_19h 4y ago
      Most countries that don't recognize dual citizenship also don't prohibit it; they just treat you as their citizen regardless of what other citizenship you might have. Is that not the case with India?
      - davchana 4y ago
        Nope, India specifically prohibits it, and expect its citizens to renounce Indian one in 6 months or less from acquiring other one. No repercussions as long as you don't go to India or deal with Indian Embassy (which almost every ex Indian has to, family, relatives, stuff in India). So for them, the process is, get US naturalization certificate. The 6 month clock starts. Get US passport (its mandatory to cancel the Indian passport). Then apply for Indian Renounce process (4 months). Now, if you want to go to India, apply for 30 day e-visa (a week at most).
moeris 4y ago
Many of us pay for government services we will never use, though. As a man, for example, I'll never be a recipient of WIC. By your logic, I should never have to pay for these benefits. However, that seems wrong. Even if I never use WIC, Social security, government housing, addiction recovery programs, etc. I should still pay for them because it's good for society as a whole. Plus, there's the fact that even if you're not living in the US doesn't mean you're not benefiting from citizenship. You still enjoy the privilege of American consulates, being able to travel to certain countries, and certain limited protections and privileges. So it's not like it's _nothing_.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  Citizenship-based taxation was brought in as a way of punishing deserters during the civil war and simply never dropped. It doesn't make sense to tax citizens who aren't resident when you are also taxing residents who aren't citizens. That's having your cake and eating it too - which I can only imagine is part of the reason no other country on Earth does this (except Eritrea, who obviously cannot enforce). If resident aliens have to pay taxes while resident, and can stop when they leave - doesn't it also make sense for resident citizens to be afforded the same luxury? The state department operates on a cost-recovery basis anyways so if you avail yourself of emergency or consular services you get mailed a bill no matter what. [edit] Remember if you live abroad you have to pay taxes to that government too! So the question is why is it a fair impingement on your freedom to live abroad to have to pay taxes to two different governments simply because you're an American? You're being punished as a de facto civil war deserter! The war is over, friend. The North won! Let freedom ring! lol. [edit2] As @drewcoo pointed out I used the term 'deserter' inappropriately in context, I should have said 'deadbeats.' I was in fact referring to citizens who left the United States around the time of the war and the way they were viewed by congress as not paying their fair share while retaining a vested interest in the outcome of the war. It was a colloquialism used as flourish that was wrong in context. h/t.
  - pokerhobo 4y ago
    https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/foreign-earned-income-exclusion https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/fore...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
refurb 4y ago
If you’re a US citizen you can move back get welfare or qualify for Medicaid if low income. Or get a heavily subsidized healthcare plan. All paid for with tax dollars. Not saying I agree with paying US taxes if not living there, but there are financial benefits to US citizenship. Compare this to say Canada, where you can leave, never pay taxes, then retire in Canada with free healthcare that you never paid into. It’s “privatize the gains, socialize the losses”. And to be honest, most Americans living outside the US will pay no US taxes. It’s just the filing burden that is the issue.
bigthymer 4y ago
The US government will look out for your interests if an incident goes down in your country of residence. A rare occurrence for most but still a service that some may end up needing\using.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  ... and then bill you. State operates on a cost-recovery basis.
  - theonething 4y ago
    At least there is the option to get rescued and then billed for it. Non-citizens don't get rescued, evacuated, etc by the US at all.
    - eesmith 4y ago
      Other countries provide repatriation services too, for their citizens. Somehow the UK does it without subjecting all British citizens worldwide to UK taxes. I read once that UK repatriation was funded as part of the passport fee, but can't verify it. In any case, if this were the justification for the policy, it might be good to know how much it costs the US vs. what extra revenue the US generate from this taxation, and the number of non-resident/non-passport holding Americans are also covered by this repatriation.
- davchana 4y ago
  Only if one is not a citizen of country in trouble. Canadian (having Canadian Citizenship) living in Canada will not get rescued even if he holds US citizenship. Dual Citizenship, each country has full rights, laws & responsibilities for citizens on their own land.

by Shank 4y ago

Taxes are for social services and benefit of the public. If you never experience those benefits and never use any social services, why should you be forced to pay those taxes?

poyes99680 4y ago

> If you never experience those benefits and never use any social services, why should you be forced to pay those taxes? That describes way more people than overseas US citizens.

spywaregorilla 4y ago

Because you are reserving the right to obtain them with your citizenship? If you want to declare that you're not going to use them (abandoning your citizenship), you don't need to pay taxes.

olliej 4y ago
But you are being required to pay money to drop your citizenship, so it's a tax being charged to people who have no other interaction with the US.
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  Not much money and it's a controversial fee that is being reduced for the very same thinking that it is unreasonable
TechBro8615 4y ago
Then why should we give it back to you when you come back? If you could just turn your citizenship on and off with no penalty, it wouldn't be fair to the people who stay in the US if those who leave could just stop paying taxes and then come back whenever they want. And if things don't go well in the US, those who stayed are stuck but those who left have another option. So them not paying taxes to the US would be like having their cake and eating it too. They could leave and stop fulfilling all their obligations, but with the option to come back whenever.
- hervature 4y ago
  Because that’s not how it works? If you give up your citizenship, it is irreversible. You’ll need to immigrate like you never were.
  - alwayslikethis 4y ago
    It's actually harder. I think when you apply for a visa, they'll make a special note if you once gave up your citizenship. Legislation to never admit entry to expatriates have been proposed before.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      It's not just when applying for visa; it comes up in all kinds of laws. For example, 18 USC § 922(d)(7): "It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person ... who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship" And yes, this is actively enforced as part of the federal background check system. Ironically, legal non-citizen residents can lawfully purchase firearms, even on a student or a work visa (although there are more hoops to jump through).
  - ilammy 4y ago
    Quite a lot of countries have a fast-track for restoring citizenship if you had one. Not on the “when you feel like it” basis, but often without onerous requirements of foreigner naturalization.
- rcme 4y ago
  > Then why should we give it back to you when you come back? Because it's in the constitution, and changing that is very hard. That's the answer.

ericmay 4y ago

If I had to guess it’s about money laundering and general tax avoidance versus not getting services. If you make $100,000/year or so while abroad if I recall correctly you don’t owe any taxes. The US will also actually come save you, not that this is necessarily “worth the cost”.

davchana 4y ago
Department of state always semd bill (although most of the time doesn't persue it). I think one still need to file the return ( no owing) the tax return even under the threshold.

ilammy 4y ago

Arguably, US Navy power projection services are provided worldwide.

olliej 4y ago
I'd be interested in seeing how frequently the US government "saves" accidental Americans around the world.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- kube-system 4y ago
  If we’re talking about the navy’s power projection, the routine benefits are in reliable global trade, not random people being “saved”.
to11mtm 4y ago
FBOW Navy as well as AF/Army (At least in Europe and parts of Oceania) provide power protection that may or may not contribute to economic prosperity.
theonething 4y ago
Jessica Buchanan was sure glad she was a tax paying US citizen when she was kidnapped by Somali gangsters and rescued by a SEAL team.[0] I saw interviews about this and the Danish kidnap victim rescued with Ms. Buchanan said something to the effect of "the best thing that happened to me given this scenario was getting kidnapped with an American." Citizenship has its privileges. I've been an US expat and will likely be one in the future and have no problem with paying taxes as a citizen either here or abroad. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_of_Jessica_Buchanan_and_Poul_Hagen_Thisted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_of_Jessica_Buchanan_and...

bdcravens 4y ago

Should those without children be required to pay the school portion of property taxes?

arcticbull 4y ago
Sure, if they're residents. Not if they live in Mongolia where they're paying for Mongolian schools via Mongolian taxes. The real question you should be asking is why are you ok double-taxing non-resident citizens?
- ghaff 4y ago
  Most school expenses come from local property taxes and most of the rest from state taxes. Very little comes from federal taxes.
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    Indeed, but I strongly suspect the parent was positioning this as a thought exercise. In that vein, do you think it's right for the town in which you lived right before moving abroad to charge you property taxes on a home you buy in a foreign country? What if there was an exemption on the first $250K in property value? After all you may one day return to your home town and they were providing bus service while you were gone... What about your home town charging you property taxes on the place you buy in the big city a few years after you move away for college? After all your family is still there and those schools won't fund themselves.

osullip 4y ago

Citizenship of all countries comes with some rules and expectations on the holder. In some cases it is national service, others it is a requirement to vote, in the U.S. case it is to declare and pay taxes. I would expect that most people like the idea of the option to live and work in the U.S. and keep their citizenship even if not residing there. I think it is a difficult call to renounce citizenship but if the tax requirements are onerous on the individual they are least have the choice.

ramraj07 4y ago
Citizenship of _some_ countries come with rules and expectations on the holder. As far as I can tell, if I leave India for good I don’t owe India anything after 1.5 years. That sounds correct.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  Not exactly, you still have rules and expectations should you return that are not imposed on non-citizen visitors. They also may choose to, in the future, impose restrictions on you but these are (unless you're Uncle Sam) very difficult to enforce on expats.
- davchana 4y ago
  True. Everything has up & downside. The downside of Indian Citizenship is you can't have two citizenships. (Although OCI card gives you almost every right except voting, gov jobs etc).
  - int_19h 4y ago
    Most countries that don't recognize dual citizenship also don't prohibit it; they just treat you as their citizen regardless of what other citizenship you might have. Is that not the case with India?
    - davchana 4y ago
      Nope, India specifically prohibits it, and expect its citizens to renounce Indian one in 6 months or less from acquiring other one. No repercussions as long as you don't go to India or deal with Indian Embassy (which almost every ex Indian has to, family, relatives, stuff in India). So for them, the process is, get US naturalization certificate. The 6 month clock starts. Get US passport (its mandatory to cancel the Indian passport). Then apply for Indian Renounce process (4 months). Now, if you want to go to India, apply for 30 day e-visa (a week at most).

moeris 4y ago

Many of us pay for government services we will never use, though. As a man, for example, I'll never be a recipient of WIC. By your logic, I should never have to pay for these benefits. However, that seems wrong. Even if I never use WIC, Social security, government housing, addiction recovery programs, etc. I should still pay for them because it's good for society as a whole. Plus, there's the fact that even if you're not living in the US doesn't mean you're not benefiting from citizenship. You still enjoy the privilege of American consulates, being able to travel to certain countries, and certain limited protections and privileges. So it's not like it's _nothing_.

arcticbull 4y ago
Citizenship-based taxation was brought in as a way of punishing deserters during the civil war and simply never dropped. It doesn't make sense to tax citizens who aren't resident when you are also taxing residents who aren't citizens. That's having your cake and eating it too - which I can only imagine is part of the reason no other country on Earth does this (except Eritrea, who obviously cannot enforce). If resident aliens have to pay taxes while resident, and can stop when they leave - doesn't it also make sense for resident citizens to be afforded the same luxury? The state department operates on a cost-recovery basis anyways so if you avail yourself of emergency or consular services you get mailed a bill no matter what. [edit] Remember if you live abroad you have to pay taxes to that government too! So the question is why is it a fair impingement on your freedom to live abroad to have to pay taxes to two different governments simply because you're an American? You're being punished as a de facto civil war deserter! The war is over, friend. The North won! Let freedom ring! lol. [edit2] As @drewcoo pointed out I used the term 'deserter' inappropriately in context, I should have said 'deadbeats.' I was in fact referring to citizens who left the United States around the time of the war and the way they were viewed by congress as not paying their fair share while retaining a vested interest in the outcome of the war. It was a colloquialism used as flourish that was wrong in context. h/t.
- pokerhobo 4y ago
  https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/foreign-earned-income-exclusion https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/fore...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

refurb 4y ago

If you’re a US citizen you can move back get welfare or qualify for Medicaid if low income. Or get a heavily subsidized healthcare plan. All paid for with tax dollars. Not saying I agree with paying US taxes if not living there, but there are financial benefits to US citizenship. Compare this to say Canada, where you can leave, never pay taxes, then retire in Canada with free healthcare that you never paid into. It’s “privatize the gains, socialize the losses”. And to be honest, most Americans living outside the US will pay no US taxes. It’s just the filing burden that is the issue.

bigthymer 4y ago

The US government will look out for your interests if an incident goes down in your country of residence. A rare occurrence for most but still a service that some may end up needing\using.

arcticbull 4y ago
... and then bill you. State operates on a cost-recovery basis.
- theonething 4y ago
  At least there is the option to get rescued and then billed for it. Non-citizens don't get rescued, evacuated, etc by the US at all.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    Other countries provide repatriation services too, for their citizens. Somehow the UK does it without subjecting all British citizens worldwide to UK taxes. I read once that UK repatriation was funded as part of the passport fee, but can't verify it. In any case, if this were the justification for the policy, it might be good to know how much it costs the US vs. what extra revenue the US generate from this taxation, and the number of non-resident/non-passport holding Americans are also covered by this repatriation.
davchana 4y ago
Only if one is not a citizen of country in trouble. Canadian (having Canadian Citizenship) living in Canada will not get rescued even if he holds US citizenship. Dual Citizenship, each country has full rights, laws & responsibilities for citizens on their own land.