I have to think about this one. I know that in the US, you have to file state income tax for all states you worked in during the year, and you pay each state for the time you worked there (my husband is a consultant, so he’s had to file as many as 5 or 6 State returns in some years)…so in terms of state income taxes, you are taxed on where you work, not where you live, regardless of what services you use in either place. But I’m not sure how analagous that is to a situation where you are living out of the country. As I said, will ponder on this one for a while.
The analogy is seriously flawed because there’s no benefit from your former state involved, and it also implies that it’s happening entirely against your will, rather than that all you would have to do is officially say you don’t belong in that state anymore and would no longer be beholden to it, a process you are free to initiate any time.
That is not true. When I lived in the US (and now for that matter), my taxes pay for schools even though I will never have kids. That is fine - schools are needed to benefit all society. All I am saying is that it does not make sense to pay taxes to a jurisdiction that I don’t live in.
I agree there is some benefit to citizenship and would be happy to pay a minimum basic tax for this, call it a “citizenship” tax if you like, but paying full taxes to a country I don’t live in makes little sense. Giving up citizenship sounds a lot easier than it is.
I am pretty sure that if you live in California and work in Nevada, you pay California state income tax. I am not 100% sure on this, but believe it to be the case.
Yeah, but you’re not double taxed at any point. In other words, when you move to State B, you don’t have to pay State B and State A tax for work you’ve done while residing in State B.
I worked abroad for years, but I’ve never been in danger of making more than the foreign exclusion, so I didn’t have to worry about paying income taxes in two countries at once. As much as I don’t really care about taxes, it never really made sense to me why, if I should make $150K a year living in, say, Paris, I would have to pay taxes to the local govenment on $150K and taxes to the American government on $65K. There doesn’t seem to be any good, logical reason, to me, for the double taxation.
My father was an airline pilot and got letters each year from states that he flew over demanding tax for the time he spent working in their airspace. Eventually letters from his company got them to all go away except for California.
Would it make sense to up your tax rate to 80% if you would nevertheless retain citizenship?
Of course. These are lumps we take willingly, and of course expatriates who maintain US citizenship should expect to pay some tax to benefit the greater good. But part of the reason most of us put up with this is because we get something out of it. At every moment we benefit from governmental infrastructure—the police and fire department protect us; the courts give us recourse in case we are wronged; we drive on public roads kept (usually) clean and safe. What if suddenly I realized that I would never be protected by the police, my dwelling saved by the fire department, that when someone committed a crime against me I would have no redress in the judicial system?
Instead I would be protected by another body, and would have to pay them, too. Would it be fair of me to reconsider the amount I think it fair to pay to the US government? Would “Suck it up or reject the US!” be the right thing to say to me?
I don’t consider this particularly selfish or libertarian. Desert Nomad is in a position where he might possibly never take advantage of governmental services. Surely it can be agreed that he at least has a right to feel a little slighted.
No, I do not agree that his notion that he should be able to retain the benefits of citizenship without paying the same for them as any citizen is one that should get him a moment of sympathy. Once again, all he has to do is give up citizenship. If he’s keeping it, it must be worth something to him. All these arguments about how he’s paying for nothing baffle me. If that’s true, then why is he still paying?
I’ll be the first to admit I have slight libertarian leanings… I have voted for the Libertarian candidate in several previous elections, and my vote for Obama was the first time I have ever voted for the Democratic Party.
I do place a value my US citizenship, but do think I am getting a bit of a raw deal… I would feel much better about everything if there were a minimum tax on retaining my citizenship.
If I don’t pay, then merely visiting the US is likely to get me arrested. Also, being stateless is not really an option and so I have no choice but to pay. I am frankly surprised at some of the reaction here. All my UK and Aussie friends are shocked that I have to pay tax to the US, since they don’t have to pay to their own countries.
It also makes it hard for American companies to compete overseas, but that is another matter.
Right…that was my point. In that case, you are not double taxed, but it still doesn’t seem analagous to me, and I’m trying to figure out why. Maybe I’m using a bad example, because my husband hadn’t actually moved to any of those states.
Desert Nomad, you may be right that if you live in CA and work in NV, you pay CA income tax, but could you be talking about a situation where the person permanently lives in CA and permanently works in NV (that is, they commute daily from their home in CA and their office in NV)? I think there are different rules for such a situation. But either way, the analogy isn’t working for me…there’s a difference between living in one place/working in another, and permanently moving somewhere else altogether. In moving from state to state, you don’t keep any ties to the former state, which is why they can’t demand taxes from you.
The logical reason is that you wish to remain a citizen of your original country, and presumably then have a stake in what happens there.
Sure, but, even for me who is pro-tax, it seems like citizens living abroad are disproportionately being taxed if they are paying taxes to two states simultaneously on the same income. A flat “citizenship fee,” or whatever you want to call it, would make more sense to me. Personally, I’d have no problem giving up my citizenship if I were living in another country most of my life, but it’s not always that easy to acquire other citizenships and being stateless is not really an option.
I mean, sure, it’s your choice and everything, and I’ve never fallen under the rule of paying taxes in two countries on the same income, but I can certainly see why many might find that objectionable and a little weird. I wonder how many other countries have the same rule.
To the best of my knowledge the only two countries to tax citizens working and living abroad are the USA and Libya. Canada requires that you sever all ties to Canada so you can’t own property there if you want to be excluded from the tax system.
If every country had this system then I know several people who would be taxed well over 100% since (to cite one example) a British father, Canadian mother and born in South Africa and living in Prague… they have three passports and live in a fourth country. Should they pay taxes to all four countries at say 30% of their income?
Somehow 120% tax would not seem fair. 
Note also that If I gave up US citizenship, I’d still have to pay for 10 more years per IRS rules.
Anyone know what Obama/McCan’s view on overseas taxation is?
This is from Republicans Abroad (though I am not a member):
Congressman Meeks (D-NY) and Sen. DeMint (R-SC) have introduced HR 4752 and S 3496 – the Working American Competitiveness Act – to eliminate unfair taxation of the foreign income of U.S. citizens.
The United States is the only industrialized country in the world to tax its citizens on income earned internationally. U.S. citizens working abroad are therefore taxed both by the country where they live and work, and by the United States.
For nearly three decades, U.S. tax laws provided a limited exclusion of this tax on foreign-earned income (under Section 911 of the Internal Revenue Code); however, the passage of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act (TIPRA) of 2006 narrowed the already partial exclusion. The result is a system that unfairly penalizes American working overseas and that ultimately harms America’s competitiveness in international trade by:
Creating an economic disadvantage for U.S. corporations wishing to place key personnel/top performers abroad;
Causing additional barriers-to-entry for smaller companies seeking benefits/advantages of globalization; and
Making foreign workers more attractive as options at a time when the U.S. economy is suffering
That is certainly why I am voting for McCain. Because, if there is something we can all agree on, it’s that America needs all the assault weapons it can get. :rolleyes:
The ban was silly, like I said, it involved things like bayonets. Is that really a big deal? It did nothing but penalize law-abiding gun owners and enthusiasts.
But legislation like that is really just the first step towards more bans, which is why I’d never vote for a candidate that supports gun bans. If the government doesn’t trust me to own firearms, then I don’t trust them to govern fairly.
It’s the “Who cares about anything else, I’m voting for guns !” attitude that makes me look at the Second Amendment’s primary function these days to be distracting people from the rights that actually matter. Torture, lies, wars of conquest, spying on American citizens, economic disasters - none of those matter. Just guns.
Why should you be trusted ? Look at how many people die from murder and accidents from firearms. And yes, illegal guns should be counted as part of the problem, since most of them are stolen from people who own them legally.
More than anything else electing a Democrat will personally affect my wallet and my gun cabinet. Issues like gay marriage and abortion may be important to many, but don’t really personally affect me.
Either president will have many different advisers of different political affiliations to advise and inform them about economic, domestic, and International issues. But where’s the government when home invaders break into my house at 3AM and I’m not trusted enough to defend myself? Where’s the government when I pay so much taxes that I can’t pay my electric bill? These sort of issues are where the rubber meets the road in my opinion.
Maybe I can move back to America, get more bang for my taxes, buy a big ol pickup truck and mount an anti-aircraft gun on the bed so I can go quail hunting. Maybe some SAMs too and a few bazookas. America should be as armed as Pakistan and Yemen. :rolleyes:
I’d love to know how many crimes in the last year were prevented by gun-owning home owners drawing their weapons vs injuries and deaths from guns. My guess is gun ownership has had a net negative effect.