IANAL, but I believe that all the unpleasantries which you note were decided by the U.S. Congress. (Most probably with the President's sign-off.) Making the IRS out to be the Real Villain(tm) here only helps a bunch of self-serving politicians to evade responsibility.

Good for Congress for trying to prevent this.

Unfortunately, it sounds like the vast majority of targets bear no resemblance to your stereotype. And the system has no interest in discriminating between the few filthy rich town-skippers and the vast majority who are just easy victims.

Targeting all members of large group - because a small minority of them are "bad" in some emotional-button-pushing way - has a very long and disreputable history.

Why else would Eric Schmidt want to become a citizen of Cyprus, which then also allows him to live elsewhere in the EU? It’s certainly isn’t to end up laying more in taxes than he would in the US.

On the up side you can apparently still qualify for Social Security benefits.

Capital gains are deferred without interest until an asset it sold, that doesn’t mean there wasn’t an obligation for those years.

I would say consequences of infringement are much worse for individual citizens than for the government.

If the government confiscates some of your money through "civil forfeiture", you then have to sue the government and prove the money was gained legally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...

On the other hand, try not filing your taxes. What happened to John McAfee might happen to you.

what

Looking deeply at the social counteracts of other countries is really interesting because of how many different things we take for granted aren’t universal. Free speech in the US is more limited than I would like, but it gets much worse even in countries that look civilized in other ways.

Free speech in US is poorer than in most Western countries, as it fails to protect you from anything other than most government institutions. For example in US it’s fine for your employer to fire you because they don’t like what you say in your private time. Other countries provide better protection.

My question is still unanswered: why would anyone in US even think about their law enforcement invoicing the victims?

The FBI may get involved for citizens outside the US. The international situation is complex but being or not being a US citizen can very much change FBI involvement.

PS: My question is still unanswered: why would anyone in US even think about their law enforcement invoicing the victims? It’s a concern if your considering renouncing citizenship and moving to a country where it’s a concern just as free speech should be a concern if your moving to a country without it.

Depends on the state. The US isn't as simple as you're making it out to be.

If you've already done those things, does the IRS pay you?

The personal benefit from the obligation to serve on juries is the option of being tried by a jury of your peers.

Why would a jury of peers be a benefit, unless you assume positive bias? It’s an option, you don’t need to be tried by your peers so you would only pick it if it’s better than being judged by a judge. That doesn’t mean it’s a positive bias, you might assume judges have a negative bias.

How does that work with the draft? Look at all the countries that have been invaded, compare them to countries that haven’t been. That’s the benefit of a strong military and the existence of the draft is part of that.

but you no longer benefit from the military and other services abroad?

> It’s an option, you don’t need to be tried by your peers

but you are obligated to jury duty, to the extent you have to pay to leave?

> Look at all the countries that have been invaded

all all the ones that haven't? Doesn't seem like a draft is needed.

https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-li...

It's a huge rip-off like everything in this country.

The $2350 seem to be cheaper than fees for filing annual tax returns for the next 50 years :)

https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/citizenship/give-up-citizens...

https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/questions-an...

The SS tax is to pay current retirees. There's a formula that states how much you'll get when you retire, but the money you're putting in now is not being saved/invested for your benefit in the future.

The short version: Money you put into SS is not your money.

Furthermore, if you renounce your citizenship, it is you who are choosing not to get this benefit. It is a defined benefit for citizens, and you are choosing not to be one.

As for similarity to pensions: Far from it. When the government has an excess (i.e. total SS taxes collected is greater than payouts for a given year), they are not allowed to hold it or invest it. Pensions are/were always invested, or at least held.

Individuals who renounce their US citizenship (or were never citizens) are still eligible to receive SS benefits; SS actually has very little to do with citizenship.

Money put into Social Security is just lost to you unless you are renouncing your money after retirement.

Short term gains are taxed at your normal tax rate.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renunciation_of_citizenship#St...

Not really, because they can arbitrarily change it and backdate the change at any time, and they are currently planning to raise it to 43% and backdate the change.

In truth, the US does not have a fixed capital gains rate.