You realize the request isn’t to “the RoCA”, right? It’s to “Citizen X, Y, and Z”: you guys owe us tax money. If you don’t pay, we’ll be contacting Chase Bank and Wells Fargo to seize your accounts. Diplomatic channels will never enter into the equation.
The UK does not ignore US citizens living in the UK who attempt to evade US taxes. UK banks will assist the US in seizing assets, or will simply refuse to open accounts for Americans to avoid dealing with the paperwork. If the RoCA wants to ignore American banking law related to American citizens, it will find itself unable to do transactions with American banks or any banks that want to do business in America, which will utterly trash their economy in short order. If your banks want to be able to work with the US, then they report American citizens’ assets to the US, and assist the IRS in seizing those assets when American citizens try to evade taxes.
This is an example of the magical thinking problem that Calexit has. You think people will remain US citizens, getting all of the benefits, but somehow completely ignoring the obligations. You want to thumb your nose at US banking regulations, but at the same time expect to continue duty-free trading with the rest of the US with no issues. You want to stop being a US state, but expect US states to keep interstate agreements going with no change.
(post shortened)
I’m curious, how many non-Californians are arguing that California shouldn’t leave? Or are threatening to start a shootin’ war if CA leave?
Is California planning on taking the states of New York and Florida with them when they go? Has anyone asked the people of NY and FL if they want to join California’s hissy fit?
You’re Missing one big part of the equation. RoCA would bean ** independent nation** if this is successful. CA wold be under lo obligation, absent a treaty with the US, to provide anything to the US, or cooperate with the IRS. CA banks operating under a CA charter, would be under no obligation to comply with a request from the IRS, and the IRS would basically have to stop at the border and ask permission to enter the RoCA. It’s really that simple.
Yes, CA can conduct transactions with the US, in fact, CA could even use US currency.
Ecuador, East Timor, El Salvador, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Turks and Caicos, British Virgin Islands, Zimbabwe use the US dollar as their currency. The US dollar is the most widely used currency in the world, with many countries employing it as an accepted alternative to their own currency. Or CA could print it’s own money, it’d be up to the voters.
Duty free trade? That’s kind of funny, being that the vast majority of goods imported/exported from the US go through CA’s 4 deep water ports. I wonder what would happen if CA added a few fees for the use of those ports? I’ll bet Duty free trade would be the first offer from the US to get things moving again.
Once again, CalExit isn’t about RETAINING the benefits. It’s about LOSING those benefits and replacing them with a better system. In other words, we don’t want your benefits.
Sorry, once CA successfully left the US they chartered their own banks. We have the Bank of California, etc. Without a charter, Chase and Wells Fargo can’t legally do business in CA. All CA state chartered banks, 134 last time I looked, will receive new charters.
Social Security benefits are benefits that are earned for the most part. The US regularly sends benefit to residents of foreign countries. If the US doesn’t want to pay for a benefit that people have paid for, some as long as 60 years, then fine, refund all the fees paid and interest and we’ll buy annuities, through CA institutions of course.
Other than that, new workers will probably find themselves in a privatized system, one that’s viable over the long term.
Hmm and yet our number 1 and number three trading partners share a long land border with us. The EU, which combined would jump #1 is on the wrong ocean to make shipping. Just the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit handles a little over a quarter of our total trade with that number one trading pattern, Canada. That’s before we even add in the Port Of Detroit which isn’t that far behind Oakland for tonnage handled annually and is capable of trade with both Canada and the EU (via the St Lawrence Seaway.) Frankly I’d be surprised if your assertion was anywhere close to true. It’s your claim and important to the argument you’ll need to make to get Californians to buy into your plan. So…
got a cite? Remember your claim is total trade not just waterborne trade.
They would if they want their citizens and businesses to exchange money with anyone in the US, because they’d have to comply with existing (not new) regulations for what banks can do business with US banks or be cut off. And those US citizens in California would not be able to use their US citizenship to go into the US, since the US could arrest them fro tax evasion at the border. And wouldn’t be able to use US passports for travel while acting as a tax evader because the US would revoke the passports automatically.
Are you even trying to be remotely close to facts at this point? This isn’t even ‘California doesn’t need to be able to transact with US banks, we’re awsome’, this is just a completely made up statistic that makes no sense when two of the three biggest US trade partners share a land border and the third is closer to the East Coast.
Once again. California would be an independent nation. Free from control of the US. Does the US regularly tax English citizens for money they earn in England? Why not?
Passports. I’d feel 10,000% safer traveling the world on my Republic of California passport than I would on a US passport. Passports are a non issue.
Arrest for tax evasion? As a separate nation, California businesses would be under no obligation to exchange any tax info with the US or the IRS. The IRS would have no idea who worked and who didn’t. As an independent nation, the IRS would have no authority over the citizens of this sovereign nation to enforce their rules. Any compliance would be voluntary, not mandatory.
You’re just not understanding the “separate and independent nation” part of this. California’s 2015 nominal GDP of $2.46 trillion ranked as the 6th largest economy in the friggen world, notching in about $37 million more than France’s 2015 GDP.
France seems to survive well being 7th, I’m betting California will thrive being 6th.
Trade won’t stop because CA becomes independent. Trade will continue, with CA free to make whatever trade agreements with whatever partners it chooses.
Ah, Oakland. Make that California has 5 deep water ports. I forgot about Oakland.
Obviously when I’m mentioning trade with respect to the deep water ports, I’m talking about items shipped. It doesn’t need to be spelled out.
Here.
*Southern California’s ports are investing billions of dollars to update terminals, increase rail capacity and accommodate bigger ships.
*
15.15 million containers per year. That’s over a million a month, or about 41,500 a day. And that’s just 2 ports.
…Based on the value of two-way trade, the Port of Los Angeles ranked top in the nation last year with a total of $291.3 billion…
That’s just 1 port.
So I take it that’s no, you don’t have a cite for your claim.
Spelling out value of the trade, not numbers of sea containers shipped, is pretty important since you also claim that it gives you power to negotiate a favorable trade arrangement. How much power you have directly relates to how much the rest of us value that trade. At this point it really seems like you are just claiming significant power based on what you can’t substantiate.
Oh and you included the 3.8 million empty containers handled by those two ports in the 15.15 million. 
But the US does tax US citizens for money they earn anywhere in the world. And you said that US citizenship would be retained. Not sure how you get out of that one.
We do tax US citizens living in foreign countries. In this very thread you argued for being able to keep US citizenship as part of secession. Do you want your cake or to eat it? Both isn’t an option under current law.
Again whether you plan to maintain US citizenship comes up.
In recent years, in an effort to crack down on money laundering and tax evasion the US has created relatively onerous regulations requiring foreign banks to report on US citizens.Sure those banks don’t fall under US law…but if they don’t comply there are significant issues for those banks doing business in and with the US. The general trend has been foreign banks and investment firms refusing to open new accounts, if not outright canceling existing accounts, for those holding US citizenship. It’s been an issue for expats getting basic financial services in many places. Welcome to the life of everyone with dual citizenship in the new RoCA if you aren’t changing your goals for what the split looks like.
If you maintain your citizenship the IRS, with very high likelihood, will be getting detailed reporting on your accounts. That’s the same as every other US citizen living abroad is treated. Things like regular deposits from your employer will be included in that reporting. Sure you could avoid tax evasion arrest by never crossing the border into the US instd of just filing and paying your US taxes. Of course that assumes tax evasion charges wouldn’t be included in any extradition treaty we negotiated with RoCA.
It was much earlier in the thread when I pointed out that after even the friendliest split many Californians would be motivated to renounce their citizenship. There’s a reason.
We’ve already covered the circumstances that result in a citizen losing their US citizenship. They don’t apply here.
…
Again, the IRS is powerless to do anything in a foreign country absent an agreement with that country. =
Many may. They won’t have to.
Assume you work for a business licensed and located in an independent California. The IRS would need records from that business to determine your tax obligation, if any. The IRS would be powerless to force said “foreign” business to comply with laws of the United States with respect to producing records. The IRS would be powerless to “invade” California and seize assets or records. Their letters and calls would go unanswered, because California has no treaty with the US re: taxation.
Hmmm…refusal to pay taxes that support poor people, privatized Social Security, and evading taxes on US citizens working abroad. Such a noble calling.
I’m prepared to dismiss this as a right-wing libertarian fantasy. No wonder a billionaire wants to bankroll the whole scheme. With Peter Thiel’s libertarian island not working out, this must have seemed like the next best thing.
The US regularly taxes AMERICAN citizens for money they earn in England, which is the important point here. The US doesn’t tax English citizens because none exist, there simply is no such thing as English citizenship. The US doesn’t tax British citizens who aren’t American citizens, but retaining American citizenship is exactly what you’re forgetting about.
California banks would be under obligation to exchange tax info with the IRS if they wished to conduct business with American banks, just like all banks in the world are now. And cutting California off from doing business with America would be economic suicide for California, so they would do like the banks of separate countries do, which is either give the IRS all of the info they want, or refuse to hold accounts for US citizens in the country.
The IRS has authority over all American citizens, compliance is, in fact mandatory. I don’t know why you keep ‘forgetting’ the American citizenship of the people in question when it’s the key point of this particular line of discussion. They don’t directly have authority over foreign banks, but the US government has authority over US banks and any banks that want to do business in the US or with US banks.
You’re just not understanding the “American citizen” and “Banks that want to do business with American banks” part of this.
Not at all. You’re ignoring the fact that the IRS will have no authority over RoCA banks. None at all. Banks can turn to the World banking community if they choose. This is simply not a problem. The IRS will be powerless over the RoCA. Hell, the IRS lost every battle it fought with Scientology, and they could reach them. The IRS is simply not a concern because they will lack any mechanism to enforce US law in an independent country that refuses to cooperate with them.
In other news, moving ahead…
Without any real effort with respect to reaching out to the people; Over a three-day window, YesCalifornia surveyed 8,912 Californians on the question “Should California be an independent country?” The responses came in from across the state, from both urban and rural communities, from coastal to inland regions, and from San Diego to Eureka.
41% yes.
59% no.
When asked, first and foremost, I am a/an
47% answered American.
53% answered Californian.
Small sample, but large and diverse enough to provide a major moral boost to a young cause.
And Calexit again sticks their head in the sand and completely ignores reality. Banks, worldwide, right now, either submit information on American citizens to the IRS, refuse to hold accounts for American citizens living abroad, or end up completely cut off from doing business in America. This isn’t a hypothetical new law, this is something that happens right now. The fact that you don’t want to acknowledge it doesn’t mean that it’s a myth.
The same World Banking Community that thinks it is a problem for them and that more and more won’t open new accounts for American citizens living abroad? Good luck keeping that economy going with no exports to the US.
You understand that all of these imaginary “California-US dual citizens” will simply be arrested for tax evasion the moment they enter the remainderUS, right? Or are they just not going to visit?