5 ms·

This is going to sound snarky, but I'm not sure how else to ask it: why should I (or anyone not an expat) care? It seems to me that the complaint is from peopl

by cujo 12y ago

This is going to sound snarky, but I'm not sure how else to ask it: why should I (or anyone not an expat) care? It seems to me that the complaint is from people who don't live in the US and have very little attachment to it other than convenience.

ChuckMcM 12y ago
If you are an American living in the states you should care because bad tax policy is like a cold sore that never heals, and indication of a much deeper systemic problem. Because it is systemic, it will likely come around and affect you directly. In many ways the tax code is the scab over the festering and oozing mass that is the budget that most represents the problems in the government that are going unsolved. If you want to find problems to solve, that is where you will find them.
- cujo 12y ago
  I'm not saying you're incorrect, but this statement tells me nothing other than bad tax code is bad. Why is this new law bad?
mikeash 12y ago
Isn't your last bit the whole point? These people have very little attachment to the US but are still undergoing hardship due to US government policy due to what is basically a technicality of legal status. For a more personal point of view, how sure are you that you will never, ever decide to retire to, say, Costa Rica?
- cujo 12y ago
  First of all, I should have mentioned that I'm naive on the topic. From that point of view this seems like a very odd thing to be upset about, hence my question. Second, for having little attachment, they seem more than happy to house a respectable chunk of money resting abroad. I find it odd that their new home is so lovely except they don't want their money there. And to answer your question about say, Costa Rica, I guess I always assumed that if I were going to retire else somewhere it would be in such a way that I would commit to that location. I don't understand the idea of moving to another country and leaving all my shit back at the motherland. Again, I'm naive of this whole process, so that may be the silliest thing you read today. Sorry if it is.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    Catching up late, hope you still see this.... Anyway, I get the impression that you don't understand the problem being discussed. It has nothing to do with leaving stuff back at the motherland. The problem is that the US is placing onerous rules on foreign banks that do business with US citizens regardless of where those US citizens actually live. Those rules are so onerous that many banks are deciding that it's easier to just refuse to do business with any US citizen. To take the example of retiring to Costa Rica, you say you'd commit to that location. Presumably that implies putting your money in a bank account in Costa Rica. The problem here is that a Costa Rican bank is likely to refuse to open an account for you because of these rules. You can still be affected by this even if you are completely disentangled from the US in every way aside from not having explicitly renounced your citizenship. You could, I believe, be affected by this even if you never touched US soil, for example if you were born and raised in a country that allows dual citizenship and inherited US citizenship from an American parent. Of course, in that scenario, it's much more reasonable to renounce your US citizenship.
digikata 12y ago
For one, Americans living abroad and establishing business relationships seems like it would be a component in increasing exports from America, reducing the trade deficit.
- cujo 12y ago
  Perhaps. But I'm not convinced this new law would have any effect on the scenario you describe. Money is getting pretty good at crossing borders, and the people this mostly effects are not those in the position to put a dent in the trade deficit.
  - digikata 12y ago
    The individuals could be working for large multi-national corporations and still be employees affected by this problem. It's not a sole deciding factor, but if it just adds a little friction in some business options (e.g. hey, who do we have whose willing to go overseas for a year and setup our foreign office) vs others, then it can still affect the needle.

by cujo 12y ago

ChuckMcM 12y ago

If you are an American living in the states you should care because bad tax policy is like a cold sore that never heals, and indication of a much deeper systemic problem. Because it is systemic, it will likely come around and affect you directly. In many ways the tax code is the scab over the festering and oozing mass that is the budget that most represents the problems in the government that are going unsolved. If you want to find problems to solve, that is where you will find them.

cujo 12y ago
I'm not saying you're incorrect, but this statement tells me nothing other than bad tax code is bad. Why is this new law bad?

mikeash 12y ago

Isn't your last bit the whole point? These people have very little attachment to the US but are still undergoing hardship due to US government policy due to what is basically a technicality of legal status. For a more personal point of view, how sure are you that you will never, ever decide to retire to, say, Costa Rica?

cujo 12y ago
First of all, I should have mentioned that I'm naive on the topic. From that point of view this seems like a very odd thing to be upset about, hence my question. Second, for having little attachment, they seem more than happy to house a respectable chunk of money resting abroad. I find it odd that their new home is so lovely except they don't want their money there. And to answer your question about say, Costa Rica, I guess I always assumed that if I were going to retire else somewhere it would be in such a way that I would commit to that location. I don't understand the idea of moving to another country and leaving all my shit back at the motherland. Again, I'm naive of this whole process, so that may be the silliest thing you read today. Sorry if it is.
- mikeash 12y ago
  Catching up late, hope you still see this.... Anyway, I get the impression that you don't understand the problem being discussed. It has nothing to do with leaving stuff back at the motherland. The problem is that the US is placing onerous rules on foreign banks that do business with US citizens regardless of where those US citizens actually live. Those rules are so onerous that many banks are deciding that it's easier to just refuse to do business with any US citizen. To take the example of retiring to Costa Rica, you say you'd commit to that location. Presumably that implies putting your money in a bank account in Costa Rica. The problem here is that a Costa Rican bank is likely to refuse to open an account for you because of these rules. You can still be affected by this even if you are completely disentangled from the US in every way aside from not having explicitly renounced your citizenship. You could, I believe, be affected by this even if you never touched US soil, for example if you were born and raised in a country that allows dual citizenship and inherited US citizenship from an American parent. Of course, in that scenario, it's much more reasonable to renounce your US citizenship.

digikata 12y ago

For one, Americans living abroad and establishing business relationships seems like it would be a component in increasing exports from America, reducing the trade deficit.

cujo 12y ago
Perhaps. But I'm not convinced this new law would have any effect on the scenario you describe. Money is getting pretty good at crossing borders, and the people this mostly effects are not those in the position to put a dent in the trade deficit.
- digikata 12y ago
  The individuals could be working for large multi-national corporations and still be employees affected by this problem. It's not a sole deciding factor, but if it just adds a little friction in some business options (e.g. hey, who do we have whose willing to go overseas for a year and setup our foreign office) vs others, then it can still affect the needle.