5 ms·

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

by 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...
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    This is not what it seems. The exemption amount isn't exactly a windfall level ($120K). Amounts earned over that are taxed in both countries - the US and the foreign country - and the only way to avoid double-taxation on that is if the US has a tax treaty with the country [1]. But that treaty generally means you end up having to pay whichever rate is higher: the US rate or the local rate, in aggregate. More importantly you're not exempt from filing even if you have no net tax obligation to the US. These returns are not easy to prepare, and so you may end up spending thousands of dollars per year paying one of the likely very few people with experience filing returns to both countries and properly attributing income and deductions. It gets much, much worse if you want to start a business in the foreign country in which you live because then you're the owner of what the IRS considers a Controlled Foreign Corporation. The paperwork for this is a waking nightmare and will cost you thousands more per year, if you're even in a position to complete it. [2] Notice in [2] the US definitely on of a CFC is also different than the rest of the world. [1] https://www.irs.gov/businesses/international-businesses/united-states-income-tax-treaties-a-to-z https://www.irs.gov/businesses/international-businesses/unit... [2] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cfc.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cfc.asp
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      > ..the US definitely on of a CFC.. Ugh. ..the US definition of** a CFC...
- judge2020 4y ago
  > Citizenship-based taxation was brought in as a way of punishing deserters during the civil war and simply never dropped. Have a resource for this? From what I remember, income tax started around the 1910's with the 16th amendment and grew to take out a large portion of citizens' income when prohibition severely cut sales tax proceeds from alcohol.
- drewcoo 4y ago
  > Citizenship-based taxation was brought in as a way of punishing deserters during the civil war and simply never dropped. It was started in 1861 as a way to raise revenue to fight a war. https://nomadcapitalist.com/global-citizen/citizenship-based-taxation-countries/ https://nomadcapitalist.com/global-citizen/citizenship-based... Deserters would most likely have gone home, remaining citizens and living in the US. And I'm unaware of US IRS attempt to collect taxes from the CSA during the war. https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/23934 https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/...
vouaobrasil 4y ago
The situations are so different though. No matter how hard you try, if you are living in a country, you are going to use SOMETHING that is paid for by taxes. Roads, walking down the sidewalk even, snow removal, throwing away a wrapper in a city garbage can, NOT stepping in glass because someone picked it up, ambulance if you get in an accident, etc. Whereas if you live in another country for years, you use pretty much NOTHING (except for some consular services MAYBE). Huge difference.
- _s 4y ago
  You pay for the political, economic and military power that ensures you are somewhat protected when in another country. Would you rather have a US passport living in UAE or Bali or Australia, or would you prefer to have an Iranian one? I'm not saying the taxation is "right", as nearly all other nations don't care, just highlighting what folks would argue it's for.
  - vouaobrasil 4y ago
    I've never been to UAE or Bali, but I wouldn't mind having an Iranian passport in Australia. I can't imagine I would ever benefit from the "protection" of the USA while in Australia. And one could argue that if you are living in UAE, then having a US passport doesn't protect you more than having a Canadian one, so you're not really getting anything more of value from the much more powerful American one over the Canadian. I realize folks are arguing what it's for, but I don't think their argument holds water.
    - aaomidi 4y ago
      Trust me. You would mind that citizenship.
  - cperciva 4y ago
    US taxation applies to dual citizens who don't hold US passports though. Heck, it applies to people who don't even realize that they are US citizens -- a number of Canadians have been hit by large bills from the IRS after discovering at advanced age that they have a parent born in the USA.

by moeris 4y ago

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...
- arcticbull 4y ago
  This is not what it seems. The exemption amount isn't exactly a windfall level ($120K). Amounts earned over that are taxed in both countries - the US and the foreign country - and the only way to avoid double-taxation on that is if the US has a tax treaty with the country [1]. But that treaty generally means you end up having to pay whichever rate is higher: the US rate or the local rate, in aggregate. More importantly you're not exempt from filing even if you have no net tax obligation to the US. These returns are not easy to prepare, and so you may end up spending thousands of dollars per year paying one of the likely very few people with experience filing returns to both countries and properly attributing income and deductions. It gets much, much worse if you want to start a business in the foreign country in which you live because then you're the owner of what the IRS considers a Controlled Foreign Corporation. The paperwork for this is a waking nightmare and will cost you thousands more per year, if you're even in a position to complete it. [2] Notice in [2] the US definitely on of a CFC is also different than the rest of the world. [1] https://www.irs.gov/businesses/international-businesses/united-states-income-tax-treaties-a-to-z https://www.irs.gov/businesses/international-businesses/unit... [2] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cfc.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cfc.asp
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    > ..the US definitely on of a CFC.. Ugh. ..the US definition of** a CFC...
judge2020 4y ago
> Citizenship-based taxation was brought in as a way of punishing deserters during the civil war and simply never dropped. Have a resource for this? From what I remember, income tax started around the 1910's with the 16th amendment and grew to take out a large portion of citizens' income when prohibition severely cut sales tax proceeds from alcohol.
drewcoo 4y ago
> Citizenship-based taxation was brought in as a way of punishing deserters during the civil war and simply never dropped. It was started in 1861 as a way to raise revenue to fight a war. https://nomadcapitalist.com/global-citizen/citizenship-based-taxation-countries/ https://nomadcapitalist.com/global-citizen/citizenship-based... Deserters would most likely have gone home, remaining citizens and living in the US. And I'm unaware of US IRS attempt to collect taxes from the CSA during the war. https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/23934 https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/...

vouaobrasil 4y ago

The situations are so different though. No matter how hard you try, if you are living in a country, you are going to use SOMETHING that is paid for by taxes. Roads, walking down the sidewalk even, snow removal, throwing away a wrapper in a city garbage can, NOT stepping in glass because someone picked it up, ambulance if you get in an accident, etc. Whereas if you live in another country for years, you use pretty much NOTHING (except for some consular services MAYBE). Huge difference.

_s 4y ago
You pay for the political, economic and military power that ensures you are somewhat protected when in another country. Would you rather have a US passport living in UAE or Bali or Australia, or would you prefer to have an Iranian one? I'm not saying the taxation is "right", as nearly all other nations don't care, just highlighting what folks would argue it's for.
- vouaobrasil 4y ago
  I've never been to UAE or Bali, but I wouldn't mind having an Iranian passport in Australia. I can't imagine I would ever benefit from the "protection" of the USA while in Australia. And one could argue that if you are living in UAE, then having a US passport doesn't protect you more than having a Canadian one, so you're not really getting anything more of value from the much more powerful American one over the Canadian. I realize folks are arguing what it's for, but I don't think their argument holds water.
  - aaomidi 4y ago
    Trust me. You would mind that citizenship.
- cperciva 4y ago
  US taxation applies to dual citizens who don't hold US passports though. Heck, it applies to people who don't even realize that they are US citizens -- a number of Canadians have been hit by large bills from the IRS after discovering at advanced age that they have a parent born in the USA.