5 ms·

> If you plan to have kids, be ready for corporal punishment in most schools and even some junior colleges, and (far more burdensome and soul crushing for an in

by zhemao 13y ago

> If you plan to have kids, be ready for corporal punishment in most schools and even some junior colleges, and (far more burdensome and soul crushing for an individualistic soul) military conscription For US expats raising their kids in Singapore, there is the option of sending them to the American international school (http://www.sais.edu.sg/ http://www.sais.edu.sg/) instead of the public Singaporean school system. As for military conscription, that only applies to citizens, so if your children take US citizenship instead of Singaporean citizenship (US practices Jus Sanguinis, so I think this is possible), they wouldn't have to worry about military service (I'm not Singaporean or an immigration lawyer, so don't take my word on that). In short, expats can totally avoid having that reality hit them. Expats tend to live in a totally different world than the natives of the countries in which they settle.

visakanv 13y ago
^and many if not all of them do just that, yes.
mdda 13y ago
US citizens are taxed on world-wide income, so the benefits of the low-tax environment aren't so much of a factor, since you owe the IRS on whatever you earn anywhere on earth (but for a ~$80k exemption). Most other countries tax based on where you earn (i.e. earn money while resident abroad => don't have to remit tax on those earnings to your birth-country). AFAIK, Sivers (smartly) had a lot of his exit proceeds put in a trust, so he may be somewhat tax-agnostic.
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago
  After your $97,600 foreign-earned income exclusion (2013), you can at least deduct the taxes you pay to another foreign government. I don't even bother with the FEIE anymore, I just deduct my higher Chinese taxes. But to each his own.
- strlen 13y ago
  Sivers also did surrender his US citizenship: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/04/30/2012-10274/quarterly-publication-of-individuals-who-have-chosen-to-expatriate https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/04/30/2012-102...
  - mdda 13y ago
    Interesting : I was mainly responding to the comment about US expats having a special cocooned existence (which may well be true, for expats from all first-world countries). But its parent post also fingered low taxes as being a reason that Singapore is attractive to individuals (which isn't really the case for US taxpayers).
strlen 13y ago
> As for military conscription, that only applies to citizens, so if your children take US citizenship instead of Singaporean citizenship (US practices Jus Sanguinis, so I think this is possible), they wouldn't have to worry about military service (I'm not Singaporean or an immigration lawyer, so don't take my word on that). If you (like afaik, Sivers) surrender the US citizenship, is there any basis for children taking US citizenship? > In short, expats can totally avoid having that reality hit them. Expats tend to live in a totally different world than the natives of the countries in which they settle. I think that's what bothers me, but I am also somewhat at a loss why: it is just for a country to allow an expatriate class that never takes citizenship, but which others contributes (indeed, that is a positive). It is legitimate for individuals to choose to forego the benefits of citizenship in order to avoid the associated responsibilities, yet I can't help by somehow sneer at a group of people who are in a country quasi-permanently (i.e., not a short-term business trip) by choice (they aren't fleeing famine or oppression -- which would be a different matter) by choose not to become its citizen. I also don't think Singapore is a bad place. Quite frankly their immigration policies are far better than a large chunk of the world. They certainly put a far larger expectation on their citizens, but nothing really out of bounds of a Rawlsian "decent country" -- basic civil rights are respected. On the other hand US is guilty of a crime of omission -- there are many potential immigrants coming from unstable, dangerous, and poor places that are denied the right to settle in US, but would be able to settle in Singapore. I guess if I had to pin it down, what bugs me is the way many Westernerns move and settle in countries without regards to their culture and ways of living -- out of purely material and practical concerns.
- eshvk 13y ago
  > I guess if I had to pin it down, what bugs me is the way many Westernerns move and settle in countries without regards to their culture and ways of living -- out of purely material and practical concerns. And what do you think of clans of Indians who move to the U.S. for purely material and practical concerns, live cocooned in communities (especially in the South Bay) ?
  - strlen 13y ago
    1) I don't think they live "cocooned". I've lived in South Bay myself for 18 years and honestly haven't seen this. Quite frankly your statement struck me as odd (I earlier wrote racist, but on a second read, I don't think this qualifies) and reactionary ("clans"?). Maintaining ethnic stores, restauraunts, and community events is very different from being "cocooned". They obey US laws (assuming all burdens and responsibilities of citizenship), they don't live in compounds unreachable to outsiders, etc... 2) The delta in material situation between India and US is far higher than the delta between US and and Singapore. Westerners moving to Singapore aren't escaping grinding poverty. 3) There's a large Indian community in Singapore (indeed the very name of the country is in an Indian language) and if you're going to compare Indians moving to the US to another group moving to Singapore (well, perhaps not moving -- they've been there for a long time), this is probably the right comparison to make. I don't see a problem with multi-ethnic states, as long as everyone lives by the same basic laws. I'd still think I would find it acceptable even if the cultures were completely isolated from rest of the country, e.g., Amish in the US, as long as -- again -- they lived by the same laws. 4) I did state elsewhere that I think in terms of immigration policies, Singapore may be "superior" to the US. I strongly believe in immigration as primary human right: everyone should have the right to move wherever they please (with only exception being due to basic economic condition -- a mostly theoretical concern, as usually countries with greatest population densities and largest immigrant population tend to be more prosperous), whether this is the right choice for others is a personal matter (something I can speak out against, but have no right to deny).

by zhemao 13y ago

visakanv 13y ago

^and many if not all of them do just that, yes.

mdda 13y ago

US citizens are taxed on world-wide income, so the benefits of the low-tax environment aren't so much of a factor, since you owe the IRS on whatever you earn anywhere on earth (but for a ~$80k exemption). Most other countries tax based on where you earn (i.e. earn money while resident abroad => don't have to remit tax on those earnings to your birth-country). AFAIK, Sivers (smartly) had a lot of his exit proceeds put in a trust, so he may be somewhat tax-agnostic.

seanmcdirmid 13y ago
After your $97,600 foreign-earned income exclusion (2013), you can at least deduct the taxes you pay to another foreign government. I don't even bother with the FEIE anymore, I just deduct my higher Chinese taxes. But to each his own.
strlen 13y ago
Sivers also did surrender his US citizenship: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/04/30/2012-10274/quarterly-publication-of-individuals-who-have-chosen-to-expatriate https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/04/30/2012-102...
- mdda 13y ago
  Interesting : I was mainly responding to the comment about US expats having a special cocooned existence (which may well be true, for expats from all first-world countries). But its parent post also fingered low taxes as being a reason that Singapore is attractive to individuals (which isn't really the case for US taxpayers).

strlen 13y ago

> As for military conscription, that only applies to citizens, so if your children take US citizenship instead of Singaporean citizenship (US practices Jus Sanguinis, so I think this is possible), they wouldn't have to worry about military service (I'm not Singaporean or an immigration lawyer, so don't take my word on that). If you (like afaik, Sivers) surrender the US citizenship, is there any basis for children taking US citizenship? > In short, expats can totally avoid having that reality hit them. Expats tend to live in a totally different world than the natives of the countries in which they settle. I think that's what bothers me, but I am also somewhat at a loss why: it is just for a country to allow an expatriate class that never takes citizenship, but which others contributes (indeed, that is a positive). It is legitimate for individuals to choose to forego the benefits of citizenship in order to avoid the associated responsibilities, yet I can't help by somehow sneer at a group of people who are in a country quasi-permanently (i.e., not a short-term business trip) by choice (they aren't fleeing famine or oppression -- which would be a different matter) by choose not to become its citizen. I also don't think Singapore is a bad place. Quite frankly their immigration policies are far better than a large chunk of the world. They certainly put a far larger expectation on their citizens, but nothing really out of bounds of a Rawlsian "decent country" -- basic civil rights are respected. On the other hand US is guilty of a crime of omission -- there are many potential immigrants coming from unstable, dangerous, and poor places that are denied the right to settle in US, but would be able to settle in Singapore. I guess if I had to pin it down, what bugs me is the way many Westernerns move and settle in countries without regards to their culture and ways of living -- out of purely material and practical concerns.

eshvk 13y ago
> I guess if I had to pin it down, what bugs me is the way many Westernerns move and settle in countries without regards to their culture and ways of living -- out of purely material and practical concerns. And what do you think of clans of Indians who move to the U.S. for purely material and practical concerns, live cocooned in communities (especially in the South Bay) ?
- strlen 13y ago
  1) I don't think they live "cocooned". I've lived in South Bay myself for 18 years and honestly haven't seen this. Quite frankly your statement struck me as odd (I earlier wrote racist, but on a second read, I don't think this qualifies) and reactionary ("clans"?). Maintaining ethnic stores, restauraunts, and community events is very different from being "cocooned". They obey US laws (assuming all burdens and responsibilities of citizenship), they don't live in compounds unreachable to outsiders, etc... 2) The delta in material situation between India and US is far higher than the delta between US and and Singapore. Westerners moving to Singapore aren't escaping grinding poverty. 3) There's a large Indian community in Singapore (indeed the very name of the country is in an Indian language) and if you're going to compare Indians moving to the US to another group moving to Singapore (well, perhaps not moving -- they've been there for a long time), this is probably the right comparison to make. I don't see a problem with multi-ethnic states, as long as everyone lives by the same basic laws. I'd still think I would find it acceptable even if the cultures were completely isolated from rest of the country, e.g., Amish in the US, as long as -- again -- they lived by the same laws. 4) I did state elsewhere that I think in terms of immigration policies, Singapore may be "superior" to the US. I strongly believe in immigration as primary human right: everyone should have the right to move wherever they please (with only exception being due to basic economic condition -- a mostly theoretical concern, as usually countries with greatest population densities and largest immigrant population tend to be more prosperous), whether this is the right choice for others is a personal matter (something I can speak out against, but have no right to deny).