It’s a funny fear, because today, being in the US vs. some other developed country takes about 7-8 years off your life.
Meanwhile, those developed countries with functioning health care systems that you can return to whenever don’t bother with worldwide taxation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expe...
When accounting for all sexes, US sits at 79.3 years and the top country sits at 83.7 years. Where is this "7-8 years" coming from?
My poor recall.
The US government couldn’t care less. If everyone decided to eat only TV dinners and shelf stable snacks that would be A-OK, even desirable because that kind of thing leads to GDP growth. France would never allow it.
US governments are borderline contemptuous of tradition, and tend to court radical reinventions of basic needs. That leads to people getting hurt, but is great for the economy.
>France would never allow it.
While I do not support eating unhealthy foods like that on a regular basis at all (I have some sort of instinctive repulsion towards that), I do support allowing adults to have the freedom to make their own choices regarding what they eat.
In the U.S. no one is going to force you to buy anything, but no one will save you when your market disappears.
It’s a kind of freedom, but it’s not “more choice”. It’s often less choice.
Does it actually?
I assume that disparity is more to do with the populations of impoverished people around this very diverse country that can't compare to smaller European countries that just don't have those populations.
There is no Mississippi in Germany, those populations are in other countries.
If you compare the whole European Union to the US the disparity is much smaller.
>It’s a funny fear, because today, being in the US vs. some other developed country takes about 7-8 years off your life.
I think that is an exaggeration, I can't find that statistic anywhere.
But you have to look at people in your demographic, not the entire country.
The US has the best health care in the world if you can afford it.
Just about anybody can get insurance and set aside the max out of pocket costs to insure themselves and their family, but they will take a considerable hit in quality of life, home size, luxuries, etc. In other countries that health care is paid for with lowered salaries through taxes and quality of life takes a hit anyway.
> There is no Mississippi in Germany, those populations are in other countries.
It depends on what you mean by that comparison. Germany relatively recently absorbed a much poorer East Germany. There are still states like Mecklenburg-Vorpommern that are much poorer than the average in Germany. Yet they're all integrated into Germany's very good healthcare system. It could be the same in the US, but it isn't, for political reasons.
> If you compare the whole European Union to the US the disparity is much smaller.
This is not true. The European Union member states have a much greater range of GDP/capita than US states.
But even if you dealt with a broker and crafted a special insurance insurance product to deal with the eventuality of being denied further insurance, you are ignoring something significant: you don't improve the quality of life or lifespan of the population by making healthcare only accessible to the rich.
But you don’t need a US passport to access that, just a decent one.
I like to think (hope? Dream?) That there won't be any more major conflicts now that we have nuclear weapons. But betting against the stupidity of politicians seems like a risky proposition.
Well to be fair, once you move back in you will already start paying taxes again. This "benefit" is already paid for by you paing taxes when you effectively become resident again after moving inside the country again. Exactly like it works for any other country right now. This is questionable as a benefit while you're not living there.
> You also get the benefits of the US legal system if you maintain ties, investments, etc.
You get those benefits even if you just do some business in US as a foreigner. By this logic, should US also tax worldwide income of anyone who does any business in it and relies somehow on its legal system? Cmon this is a huge stretch. Also if you maintain ties, investments, this means that you are already helping the country by either supporting business or outright keeping your capital in the country and helping it by investing in it. You are ALREADY helping the country. And by this logic the country is supposed to tax you further to what puniush you for helping it?
What it comes down to is that because of its size and economic power there is an enormous incentive for wealthy people who earn their income (in an actual sense, not a tax law menagerie sense) in the US to try to avoid US taxes by living abroad and moving assets, their "home", etc outside of US jurisdiction while still in reality earning their income from the US.
One of the basic benefits is always being able to return to the US. Being inside American borders is very much safer than being anywhere else if/when the next major global military issue arises.
You also get the benefits of the US legal system if you maintain ties, investments, etc.
If you don't want to pay those taxes you are welcome to renounce your citizenship, but you have to get another country to accept you first. (they won't revoke your citizenship if the result is your being stateless)