I meant if you expatriated.
“Further, expatriated individuals will be subject to U.S. tax on their worldwide income for any of the 10 years following expatriation in which they are present in the U.S. for more than 30 days, or 60 days in the case of individuals working in the U.S. for an unrelated employer.”
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=97245,00.html
Expatriated in this case means renouncing the citizenship.
Yes that’s right. I don’t really see anything wrong with the current set of rules and Schumer can propose whatever the hell he wants, I don’t take him seriously.
So the reason’s you just listed aren’t, to you, good reasons? :dubious:
No shit. But that’s not the same thing and you know it.
Now, should a person be taxed if they live outside the US? Well, that depends – are they still entitled to social security and things like that? (For the most part, I agree it’s bullshit, but as far as Savarin, if he wants to LIVE in the U.S., then he shouldn’t have ditched his citizenship. He’s not an immigrant, which is the purpose of visas and green cards.
I believe the word vodka translates to “little water”. Heh.
As the name suggests, immigration is the purpose of immigration visas, not all visas. Visas of various sorts are for any non-citizen who wants to enter the country - whether they’re just passing through as they travel to a third country or whether they plan to stay there until the day they die.
IIRC, though, most visas have a time limit on them, and have to be renewed.
In this specific case though, Saverin just went and ditched his citizenship because he didn’t want to pay taxes. That’s it. Period. Imagine if everyone in the country decided to do that?
Well, except trying to spell “USSR” in that unaccountably weird way . . .
Some native-born U.S. citizens have tried that. It never works.
You’re not paying close enough attention. The 3rd letter in Vespucci is an “S”, and the fourth letter in Amerigo is an “R.” 4 - 3 = 1 and the 1st letter is Amerigo Vespucci is an “A”, thus SR = A, thus USSR = USA.
See, it all makes sense now and I am fully on board with Terr and wish to subscribe to his newsletter. The first 100 subscribers get a free hat, courtesy of Alcoa.
I didn’t read the new legislation. But I assume there’s a clause that says if you renounce your US citizenship to avoid paying taxes that you have to leave with $100 and two suitcases. That really is shameful.
Are you sure about this? It doesn’t accord with my experience.
I moved to Ireland in January 2006 (after working in the US for over 19 years and paying my taxes on said earnings), and have worked and lived here since then. Now, admittedly, my situation is not the same is yours, as I have dual (US-Irish) citizenship through my maternal ancestry, but it’s not like I informed the IRS of my relocation plans or anything - from their perspective, I simply disappeared.
During that 2006-2012 period, I have: a) visited the US four times, and b) had my US passport renewed until 2020. No issues with either of those.
It’s weird. What Schumer is proposing is pretty much what I’ve said I would do to any whiny billionaire who says he’ll leave the country if taxes go up. “Leave, and don’t come back!”
But looking at someone actually doing it, I actually agree with Terr. I’m not really a fan of permanent exile.
Keep in mind that we’re talking only about naturalized citizens who have renounced their U.S. citizenship. Native-born citizens can’t renounce it, and can’t be barred from re-entry. Exile of citizens is a criminal punishment used by states of antiquity (much cheaper than imprisonment), but unknown to American law.
Wrong.
It makes perfect sense for American citizens living abroad to continue to pay taxes to the US. US citizenship has a host of benefits associated with it. OK, so Desert Nomad has never availed himself of consular services, but he could if he chose. If he and a group of his fellow expats were held hostage by terrorists, the US military would attempt to rescue them. He can come back to the US any time he wants, for any reason he wants, and stay as long as he wants. He is, in short, getting benefits from his citizenship, and it’s only just that he pay for those benefits. And if he decides that the benefits aren’t worth the price, fine, he can choose to stop paying it.
Now, you want to argue that he should pay lower taxes as long as he’s living outside the country? OK, that’s reasonable. You want to ask why other countries don’t have a similar policy? I don’t know, ask them. But a policy of expats paying taxes is hardly ridiculous.
Cite? (My cite would be the 14th Amendment.)
Point out to me where it says that only naturalized citizens can renounce the citizenship.
or, if you would like examples of US-born citizens who renounced their citizenships:
Did not know that. However, looking at this:
I see nothing that says renunciation is irrevocable for a native-born citizen – that would create constitutional problems – and no instance of a native-born renunciate being denied re-entry to the U.S. – which also would.