[JayMillz]

   

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/17/pf/taxes...?hpt=hp_t2

That's what 3,000 Americans chose to say last year, lining up at embassies around the world to renounce their citizenship. The numbers for 2013 represent a dramatic spike -- triple the average for the previous five years, according to a CNNMoney analysis of government data.

Some of the rush is coming from expats who are tired of dealing with complicated tax filings -- which are only getting worse as new regulations come into effect.

Unlike most countries, the U.S. taxes citizens on all income, regardless of where it is earned or where they reside. Reporting taxes can be so difficult that expats are often forced to seek expert help, which can cost thousands of dollars.

Brad Westerfield, a tax lawyer at Butler Snow, said that renunciations have increased following the implementation of a new disclosure law -- the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act -- that targets overseas tax evasion.

The measure, approved by Congress in 2010, is aimed at recouping some of the hundreds of billions the government says it loses each year in unpaid taxes.

"They've become so complicated -- the increased filing obligations over the years," Westerfield said. "You see more people giving up their citizenship or relinquishing their green cards ... Individuals [are] wanting to simplify their financial affairs, and just pay tax and report to one jurisdiction."

Westerfield said that the first wave of renunciations in 2010 coincided with a part of the law that requires individuals to report foreign assets worth as little as $50,000. That's in addition to a separate provision that forces Americans to disclose foreign bank holdings larger than $10,000.

Renunciations dipped in 2012, but now another part of the law is kicking in. The new provision requires financial institutions to report all foreign accounts held by Americans.

"People find that intrusive," Westerfield said. "Just because you live your life outside of the U.S., most of your assets are foreign assets. [Americans are] saying enough is enough."

The law has prompted some banks to kick out their American clients rather than comply. Penalties can be high if banks make a mistake reporting U.S.-held accounts, even if they are basic checking and savings accounts.

Some Americans may be giving up their passports to protect their wealth. Doing so could raise legal questions -- it's illegal to renounce your U.S. status to avoid paying taxes, and giving up citizenship doesn't mean you're off the hook for back taxes.

"The U.S. used to be the 'Rolls Royce' of destinations -- the land of opportunity," said Hong Kong-based immigration lawyer Eugene Chow. No longer, it seems. "Both naturalized and native-born American citizens are choosing to say goodbye to Uncle Sam today."

[Roosh]

I think this is a dupe.

[Soma]

(02-18-2014 08:19 PM)JayMillz Wrote:  

"The U.S. used to be the 'Rolls Royce' of destinations -- the land of opportunity," said Hong Kong-based immigration lawyer Eugene Chow. No longer, it seems. "Both naturalized and native-born American citizens are choosing to say goodbye to Uncle Sam today."

Pure hyperbole. 3000 people, or about 0.001% of the population is a pretty tiny number compared to the millions of people desperate to get in. Last time I checked the US was still the #1 country for foreign entrepreneurs, and 2nd place isn't even close.


(Coveted entrepreneurs continue to flock to the U.S., according to a new analysis (U.S. Trust / World Intellectual Property Organization). Source.)

[JayMillz]

http://online.wsj.com/articles/more-expa...1402972439

Expatriate Americans Break Up With Uncle Sam to Escape Tax Rules

"The tax dragnet has also swept up many middle-income Americans living abroad, prompting some to give up their U.S. citizenship. While people who renounce aren't freed of taxes due for past years, they don't want to risk sizable taxes and penalties for them and their children in the years ahead, experts say. Nearly 8,000 taxpayers have renounced U.S. citizenship in the past five years, Mr. Mitchel found, compared with fewer than 5,000 in the preceding decade."

"We have reached the point where middle-class American citizens abroad are being forced to renounce—especially if they have assets and are moving toward retirement—because of taxes, paperwork and huge potential penalties," said John Richardson, a Toronto lawyer with dual U.S. and Canadian citizenship. He and Ms. Moon help run a nonprofit group seeking to keep Canada from sharing private account information with U.S. authorities.

As word spreads, experts said, more Americans are likely to consider surrendering their citizenship. The State Department estimates that 7.6 million American citizens live outside the U.S., but only a fraction file required financial disclosure forms.

Unlike other developed nations, the U.S. government taxes citizens on income they earn anywhere in the world. The rule dates to the Civil War, when Ms. Moon's great-great grandfather served with Union forces.

U.S. tax liabilities also cover children born to Americans abroad, extending the reach of the IRS across generations, as well as oceans.

For decades, wealthy taxpayers were able to hide foreign assets in countries where bank-secrecy laws fostered attractive tax havens, including Switzerland, the Cayman Islands and Panama.

But the UBS case signaled the beginning of the end for such havens. Armed with information from the Swiss bank, U.S. authorities pursued individuals for back taxes, and pressured the tax professionals who helped them.

The most common mistakes usually involved Americans failing to submit a form called the Foreign Bank Account Report, or Fbar. Since 1970, U.S. taxpayers have been required to file if they held one or more foreign accounts totaling more than $10,000 over the course of a year. Until the enforcement push, many Americans never filed an Fbar.

The law is more than 40 years old, but "no one ever heard of it" before the crackdown, said Edward Kleinbard, a former chief of staff on Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation, and an expert in international tax law at the University of Southern California.

Scrutiny of Americans abroad will intensify, however, under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or Fatca, which Congress passed in 2010. The law's main provisions, which take effect in July, will require foreign financial institutions to report income of their U.S. customers to the IRS, much as U.S. banks and brokers file 1099 forms.

Middle-class Americans "face overwhelming problems when they try to engage in standard financial practices, such as having a small business, saving for retirement, investing, buying life insurance, and making wills and trusts," because of the laws governing assets abroad, said David Kuenzi, a financial planner with Thun Financial Advisors in Madison, Wis., who works with expatriates.

[puckerman]

The great libertarian writer Wendy McElroy also had a good article on "accidental Americans." Some of these people may not even know that they hold two citizenships. They may be US citizens even though they have never even set foot on US soil.

http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/3...Americans/

By the way, Wendy also writes a lot of great stuff on men's rights.

[Suits]

(06-25-2014 04:02 AM)puckerman Wrote:  

The great libertarian writer Wendy McElroy also had a good article on "accidental Americans." Some of these people may not even know that they hold two citizenships. They may be US citizens even though they have never even set foot on US soil.

http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/3...Americans/

By the way, Wendy also writes a lot of great stuff on men's rights.

My dad was an accidental American. Despite the fact that he paid tax on every dollar he ever earned in the USA (while there for three years as a student), when he discovered that he was a dual citizen and reported in to the IRS, the resulting fiasco ended up nearly pushed him over the edge.

My mom watch her husband, who was always the strong one in the relationship, change into a completely different person. For two years, while he sorted things out with the IRS, she had to be the strong one.

It didn't end up being a lot of money in back taxes in the end and I don't think he ended up being fined, but the complicated process was extremely stressful.

I know another guy, however, who has real balls and renounced his US citizenship...his only citizenship. He's now stateless.

[Enigma]

(06-25-2014 08:24 AM)Suits Wrote:  

I know another guy, however, who has real balls and renounced his US citizenship...his only citizenship. He's now stateless.

How does that work exactly?

[TigerMandingo]

(06-25-2014 08:24 AM)Suits Wrote:  

I know another guy, however, who has real balls and renounced his US citizenship...his only citizenship. He's now stateless.

That may sound like a retarded move, but upon second thought, you become a stateless person/refugee, allowing you to apply for citizenship in another country. Refugees, as a general rule, have much less red tape/bureaucratic bullshit to go through than other types of immigrants. Not advocating this, just some food for thought.

[dog]

(06-25-2014 09:25 AM)Enigma Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 08:24 AM)Suits Wrote:  

I know another guy, however, who has real balls and renounced his US citizenship...his only citizenship. He's now stateless.

How does that work exactly?

Mike Gogulski did it and documented it on his blog: http://www.nostate.com/

As far as expatrating goes, I stumbled across a guide to expatriation for Americans a number of years ago. It details the process of separating yourself from the US and particularly the IRS. It seems to have been wiped off the face of the internet since then, but I managed to save a PDF. It's interesting enough that it might deserve its own thread. (added as attachment)

[Suits]

(06-25-2014 09:25 AM)Enigma Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 08:24 AM)Suits Wrote:  

I know another guy, however, who has real balls and renounced his US citizenship...his only citizenship. He's now stateless.

How does that work exactly?

You go the embassy in the territory where you are living, make the renouncement pledge, turn in your passport and then later pick up a document that confirms your renouncement.

I know because I served as his witness at the renouncement event.

He screwed up by renouncing in a territory that has no process to provide him with a legit travel document, but if he can get to Hong Kong with enough money for the living expenses he'll incur during the process, they will be able to issue him with a stateless person's travel document.

Right now he is using a passport issued by an organization whose authority is only recognized in two African states.

So far, good idea, bad execution.

[samsamsam]

http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/12/pf/ameri...index.html

A record 3,415 Americans ditch their passports in 2014

[Easy_C]

The timing is because of a single acronym:

FATCA

Look it up. Martin Armstrong has some excellent writings about how brain-dead US policy is in this regard.

[Tuthmosis]

(02-16-2015 05:24 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/12/pf/ameri...index.html

A record 3,415 Americans ditch their passports in 2014

Since over 22 million Americans--for example--think the Moon landing was a hoax, I don't think 3,400 is statistically significant.

[Feisbook Control]

An American friend of mine who has been living in Taiwan for a couple of decades is giving serious consideration to renouncing his American citizenship because of FATCA. The last time I saw him he spent ages telling me what a massive amount of hassle it was dealing with Taiwanese banks here because of FATCA.

[cibo]

That jump to 3k americans is significant because while its small relative to the rest of the county, it is a large increase within the relevant population segment.

There's not that many americans working aboard and being paid in local currency to a foreign bank account. But for the ones who do, FATCA is a goddamn hassle. And, the longer you stay aboard the more salient the issue of FATCA becomes.

When I lived in the UK, I already had a UK bank account before most the FATCA stuff went through but other americans who came later had much bigger issues getting bank accounts. My bank said it wouldn't cancel the Americans who already had accounts but other banks did. Even then, I was really careful about keeping my balance below the FATCA limits.

If you have no bank account, good luck getting a flat or working a white collar job in other country.

[Amsterdamned]

is it maybe because of the ISIS threath that a lot of travelers are afraid for being kidnapped just because they have an american passport ?

[Phoenix]

Still waiting for that sorely needed Article 5 convention. If it ever happens, and the federal government gets throttled, I'll be buying a flight to join the celebrations.

[Suits]

(02-17-2015 05:38 AM)Amsterdamned Wrote:  

is it maybe because of the ISIS threath that a lot of travelers are afraid for being kidnapped just because they have an american passport ?

No, I do not think so.

[Sp5]

(02-17-2015 05:58 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Still waiting for that sorely needed Article 5 convention. If it ever happens, and the federal government gets throttled, I'll be buying a flight to join the celebrations.

Ha, if there was an Article V constitutional convention, it would be the Bill of Rights that would get throttled, not the government.

If you haven't noticed, most of the Bill of Rights does not poll very well amongst the American public. Neither political party stands up for the Bill of Rights. They offer different flavors of the same statist, oligarchical policies.

Just as with Congress now, the pressure of vested governmental and private interests on a con-con would lead to significant editing of the Bill of Rights to the detriment of the ordinary citizen. With a new "bill of rights," all of the accumulated case law interpreting the original Bill of Rights would be effectively nullified.

The government is ignoring the Fourth Amendment now, but at least the law is still there and can be revived by the courts, executive, and Congress.

[Phoenix]

The federal government plays no role in an Article 5 convention, other than specifying the method of ratification. Dropping any of the rights would require 3/4 of the states to agree. California might favour dropping the 2nd, but Texas and co wouldn't. I can't imagine 3/4 being against the 4th, or any of them for that matter.

What the states would be interested in is their own power. Lowering the federal capacity to tax would raise the amount they themselves could squeeze. Reigning the Commerce clause back to its original meaning would return economic liberty back to the state level. Removing invented judicial social policy 'invisible clauses' would return social policies to the states. Deleting the 17th amendment would return to them their voice in the Senate.

The ever expanding thuggery of the federal government is not going to go away. The article 5 convention is the only device left in the constitution to stop it.

[Sp5]

So you're saying that the "iron triangle" of vested governmental bureaucratic interests, their supporting private-industry contractors, and their sockpuppet think-tanks, advocacy groups, and paid media would have no voice in a con-con? There would not be lobbyists spending bales of money to influence votes? That authoritarian tendencies would not prevail, eventually limiting freedom of speech and maximizing government surveillance and police powers?

You are very optimistic. After all, the millions of law enforcement people would be lobbying for changes in the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. Private industry would want to limit the First, Second and Seventh Amendments. Perhaps the "exclusionary rule" would be nullified. Feminists, some minority group lobbies, law enforcement, and religious groups would want to change the First Amendment to get rid of "hate speech," pornography, and blasphemy.

What would happen is that rights would be "better defined" and "balanced with responsibilities," i.e. restricted.

[Aliblahba]

I'm thinking about going to Mexico to renouncing my citizenship. Then run across the border and get caught. That way I'll be entitled to a bunch of free shit like two years of college and a tax refund on money that I never paid.

[Phoenix]

(02-17-2015 07:45 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

So you're saying that the "iron triangle" of vested governmental bureaucratic interests, their supporting private-industry contractors, and their sockpuppet think-tanks, advocacy groups, and paid media would have no voice in a con-con? There would not be lobbyists spending bales of money to influence votes? That authoritarian tendencies would not prevail, eventually limiting freedom of speech and maximizing government surveillance and police powers?

You are very optimistic. After all, the millions of law enforcement people would be lobbying for changes in the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. Private industry would want to limit the First, Second and Seventh Amendments. Perhaps the "exclusionary rule" would be nullified. Feminists, some minority group lobbies, law enforcement, and religious groups would want to change the First Amendment to get rid of "hate speech," pornography, and blasphemy.

What would happen is that rights would be "better defined" and "balanced with responsibilities," i.e. restricted.

Doesn't add up. It's ratification of 75% of all states, per amendment proposed in the convention. If these groups were capable of bribing their way through 75% of ~7400 state legislators (source: http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state...terms.aspx) they'd also have the power to bribe the amendments out of 66% of the ~540 congressmen. If what you are saying is correct, it would already have happened.

[Sp5]

(02-17-2015 01:33 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 07:45 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

So you're saying that the "iron triangle" of vested governmental bureaucratic interests, their supporting private-industry contractors, and their sockpuppet think-tanks, advocacy groups, and paid media would have no voice in a con-con? There would not be lobbyists spending bales of money to influence votes? That authoritarian tendencies would not prevail, eventually limiting freedom of speech and maximizing government surveillance and police powers?

You are very optimistic. After all, the millions of law enforcement people would be lobbying for changes in the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. Private industry would want to limit the First, Second and Seventh Amendments. Perhaps the "exclusionary rule" would be nullified. Feminists, some minority group lobbies, law enforcement, and religious groups would want to change the First Amendment to get rid of "hate speech," pornography, and blasphemy.

What would happen is that rights would be "better defined" and "balanced with responsibilities," i.e. restricted.

Doesn't add up. It's ratification of 75% of all states, per amendment proposed in the convention. If these groups were capable of bribing their way through 75% of ~7400 state legislators (source: http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state...terms.aspx) they'd also have the power to bribe the amendments out of 66% of the ~540 congressmen. If what you are saying is correct, it would already have happened.

If a con-con does happen, it will be initiated by vested interests, including government insiders, but framed as a populist reform effort in order to trap the gullible. Ever hear of the term "astroturf" applied in the political context?

Every state legislature has its lobbyists around them. Obviously, California, New York, Florida and Texas have scores of lobbying firms around them, including lobbyists embedded in big law firms.

You get the numbers wrong. An amendment would not need 75% of all state legislators, only 50.01% of the legislators in a selected 38 states. You don't need California to ratify if you get Rhode Island or Wyoming.

All we need is another big terrorist attack, war, or severe economic depression, and you might see some movement to roll back the Bill of Rights formally.

Natural conservatives, whether of the right or left, are not quick to throw out a constitution that has served for 224 years. The USA is the only government still operating with a constitution that old.

[Phoenix]

(02-17-2015 03:00 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

You get the numbers wrong. An amendment would not need 75% of all state legislators, only 50.01% of the legislators in a selected 38 states. You don't need California to ratify if you get Rhode Island or Wyoming.

Fair point. This puts the bribing-base at about 2775 state politicians to ratify versus about 360 federal ones to initiate.
It's also not a 'constitutional convention' any more than Congress is a constitutional convention. It's an amendment proposing convention. The last constitution was 'thrown out' because it was crap and the new one was way better, as evidenced by the subsequent 100% ratification by the states on the proviso that a Bill of Rights was immediately added.

Your argument is also self-defeating. The Article 5 convention is no less written into the constitution by the framers than any other part. To say that the Article 5 convention should never be used, regardless of the framers intention that it be used in precisely this situation (recalcitrant federal government), is itself a rejection of the same constitution you supposedly want to protect.