Furthermore, the burden of FATCA is sufficiently onerous that many banks etc. just refuse to deal with it and close the accounts of US persons. A number of long-time expat Americans, e.g. in Germany, have renounced their citizenship because they are unable to function due to this.
Good read: Kim Philby as a Real Case of Indeterminacy of Radical Interpretation:
http://polatulet.narod.ru/dvc/ddbs/dennett_breaking.html#ch_...
Looking “overweight” can be quite deceiving.
I've been living here 3.5 years, 2 on a YM visa, 1.5 on a work visa. Unfortunately, my 2 years on YM don't even count towards the 5 required to get ILR. You can build up an entire life here & all it takes is for your work visa to be disappeared and then you have 1 month notice to gtfo the country otherwise you're "overstaying".
After 3.5 years somewhere you definitely build up "a life" there, but the UK gov offers no protections at all. Until you hit that 5 year mark they don't give a toss about you.
Challenging, and potentially criminal.
If you have any management authority over the bank accounts owned by the business, then those accounts fall under FACTA.
Hell, if you are even just an employee, but can sign on the bank account, then you have to report it to the US authorities.
So a 'business account' doesn't get you out of the US required reporting.
Also, the implication is that you'd use this for 'day to day' banking. Using a business's funds (a business bank account) to cover personal spending is typically criminal (embezzlement).
So not a solution.
And this doesn't solve the other problems, like pension savings or other financial products.
But you still have to file US taxes. As an expat, you have more forms to fill out.
AND the bigger challenges are banking. You still have to find a bank willing to open an account for you, and good luck getting more complex financial services.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_earned_income_exclusio...
If you really want to fix this, you have change the main demographic of Turkish immigrants, probably by offering a clear immigration path to students who come to Europe for graduate programs or such.
WOuld you care to expand on that? I'm curious what in particular about the US immigrant culture you would like to see adopted, and what about the current German system prevents that culture from developing.
Attidudes of Germans at large towards immigration are very mixed: 71% think that it leads to higher strain on the welfare state, 69% think it leads to conflicts with "the natives", 63% think it leads to problems in schools. At the same time, 67% think that it makes life in Germany more interesting, and 64% think immigration is important to combat the effects of our quickly aging population.[2]
Now on to what I think is the biggest failure, which is now very hard to correct: Many second or third generation immigrants still don't feel like they are "real" germans. There's still a strong class divide, which in urban areas also leads to segregated communities. They are underrepresented in politics (except for the Spätaussiedler) and white collar jobs, and there is whitespread employment discrimination, especially against people of turkish, arab and african descent.[3] While the current government declared a "welcome culture" in 2015 during the refugee crisis, in the heads of the majority of the population, there's still a very clear picture of how a "real german" looks and acts. - While close to half of the population admits that "Islam is a part of german culture now", they will still ask Ahmed "where he is really from", and rather hire Oscar over him.
This also partially explains why Erdogan is so popular among turkish Germans: They feel disrespected here, so the vision (delusion) of Erdogan making Turkey into this powerful and strong state is very appealing to them.
I do think things are getting slightly better, but there's a long way to go, and there's also risks of things turning really sour: Anti-democratic ideology is relatively widespread among the muslim minority, in contrast to the rest of the population, their level of religiousness stays about the same, the current money policy of the ECB leads to an enormous rise in living cost in urban areas, and the divide between rich and poor in Germany is increasing.
[1]https://www.bpb.de/nachschlagen/zahlen-und-fakten/soziale-si...
[2] https://mediendienst-integration.de/integration/einstellunge...
I re-read this part a few times: << Attidudes of Germans at large towards immigration are very mixed: 71% think that it leads to higher strain on the welfare state, 69% think it leads to conflicts with "the natives", 63% think it leads to problems in schools. At the same time, 67% think that it makes life in Germany more interesting, and 64% think immigration is important to combat the effects of our quickly aging population.[2] >>
At first blush, I think "Oh come on people, pick one side or the other!" Then I think again: Each one can be independently true. Taken as a whole, these opinions appear conflicted. This is the reality of large scale immigration: It is complex is any society.
When I think about immigration, I try to separate high-income/-education/-skill from the low- counterpart. Germany should be doing everything possible to attract the high side. It's a great place to raise a family.
I suppose this is just the unavoidable result of too many immigrants arriving around the same time. And when they have their own communities, they have no reason to integrate into the host culture.
Has Germany done anything to reduce the number of new immigrants coming in?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nationality_law#Victims...
Only because of US laws. I have two citizenships, but one residency. In most Western countries, being a resident is associated with healthcare and pension, so having one residency is logical.
U.S. citizenship carries extraterritorial benefits. For example, we're pretty good at getting our people out of thorny situations, even at great national expense. If someone isn't paying to support that, it makes sense to force a revocation decision.
So if anything, I'd say America is worse than other countries at getting citizens out of bad situations. But there seems to be a tendency for people to not look at what other countries actually do and just assume that America is the best.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32162364 [2] https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/21/washington-to-americans... [3] https://twitter.com/SMedia4/status/585286801968893954
I last saw data through the UNDP about ten years ago. It's very possible that the situation has degraded. And no country has 100% coverage, far from it. At the time, however, the U.S. government was exceedingly good at exfiltrating citizens from disaster zones. Granted, it has had more experience doing this because, well, empire.
The situation was starker for low-level assistance, in which many diplomatic missions will not get involved.
> According to a database compiled by New America from public sources, since 2001, American hostages taken captive by terrorist, militant, and pirate groups have been more than twice as likely to remain in captivity, die in captivity, or be murdered by their captors as the average Western hostage. Forty-three percent of American hostages died, remain in captivity, or remain unaccounted for, compared to an average of 19 percent for all Westerners.
[1] https://www.newamerica.org/international-security/policy-pap...
[1] https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/...
To be clear, most if not all countries chartered special flights for free. Later on, some more flights were organized with the help of airline companies, but those were paid.
Apparently they charge the price of a one way Economy ticket. The difference in cost was paid by the Government. Seems quite reasonable to me.
I believe BLM to be led by Marxists and that is backed up by objective evidence. I'm not sure why that's controversial. It's also objectively true that George Floyd had a criminal record. Again, I'm not sure why that's controversial. One can be very socially aware and also recognize those two facts. It is indeed problematic that Floyd pointed a gun at the abdomen of a woman whom he thought was pregnant during a home invasion robbery, or that he had significant amounts of narcotics in his system when he died. That doesn't make his death justifiable, it's just the real life complications of a real life case (which tend not to be overly clean). When did we get afraid of objective facts?
EDIT: Downvoters: explain why. Simple Q. What is it about facts you don't like?
To focus on his personal history is simply irrelevant and is in disrespect of the judicial branch and the principle on the separation of powers. No one is contending the truthfulness of his criminal history, but he didn't die as a result of that, he died as a result of the disregard of human life by an officer of the executive branch.
Even if you don't like BLM, which is okay, it stretches too far to claim it a terrorist group.
Please don't just reduce it to 'facts you don't like', facts won't get you banned, but those claims the OP made are more than that.
Are those statements you made relevant to the death of George Floyd? The answer is no.
He was a criminal who made mistakes - for which he served his time. Stating your "objective facts" appear to diverge attention elsewhere and in particular to paint George as the guilty party that warranted the police response that he received. Did he deserve that?
He begged for his life while being kneed to the throat for over 10 minutes. He then died on the floor by a police offer. There's some objective facts for you pal.
Further, there was no "real life complications of a real life case" he was literally murdered. That's the point and is why the police office is serving jail time!
Please take some time to consider what and WHY you wrote what you did. Do you think that he deserved death? Why?
They were in the judgement of a coroner. Not enough to mean murder wasn't called for, but it's obtuse to not observe that Floyd's drug load was past the lethal level for most people.
> Stating your "objective facts" appear to diverge attention elsewhere and in particular to paint George as the guilty party that warranted a cold bold death sentence. Did he that?
No, and when did I argue that? I never said he deserved to die. He should have been transported to jail and then tried for his crimes, not killed.
> He begged for his life while being kneed to the throat. There's an objective fact for you pal.
Anyone with any experience with corrections finds statements by suspects like this laughable at best. With him it was perhaps true (you physiologically can't speak if you can't breathe, but I don't deny he was killed). With someone else, it was because their wrists hurt because of those shiny bracelets they earned by committing crimes. I believe essentially nothing that a suspect says about their comfort, because the majority are accomplished liars. This is what they do. It is literally their occupation. I also believe Floyd was killed. Can you fit those two concepts in your head?
> Further, there was no "real life complications of a real life case" he was literally murdered. That's the point and is why the police office is serving jail time!
His drug consumption was absolutely a complication with his trial. Why would you think it wasn't?
> Please take some time to consider what and WHY you wrote what you did. Do you think that he deserved death? Why?
I don't think he deserved to die. I wrote what I wrote to illustrate that Real Life is hardly clean. There's nothing class-, race-, or otherwise-based in what I wrote. Objective facts.
Got it.
Why are you so hell-bent on painting me as a racist? I've said nothing of the sort. I've never said anything apologetic towards the actors in Floyd's death. I've not even made a statement on his death at all, other than his drug use complicates things (which I think anyone would agree upon).
Sure seems like you're out to get someone. Why? What makes you so hungry for blood? I did nothing to irritate you.
Every single developed country practices capitalism. Every one. The Scandinavians practice Democratic Socialism precisely because they have a surplus to spend on social programs (largely due to a combination of oil money and a lack of a semi-permanent underclass), none of which sounds particularly socialist to me.
how many American get into that kind of shit storm? it seem like this benefit isn't worth the taxes that you pay
1 - just trying to work through what all might possibly be owed and not owed to US as well as the country(ies) one operates in.
2 - Identifying through which paperwork to declare it, while also ensuring income / business reporting is copacetic with the tax regime of the country that same is actually earned in. As a business owner, (many operating overseas are looking after a business) I have to complete corporate accounts (which costs $$$$ and takes forever) before I can file American income tax for the same accounting year.
3 - the value of the tax liability itself is a distant third in terms of hassle than any of the above. (I’ll include in this bucket the fact that Americans are taxed on income earned abroad, putting us at enormous disadvantage for work opportunities vis—a-vis peer expats who come from other countries)
For this change to occur, many senators and representatives would have to be directly and personally incentivized to make the change.
They aren't.
I know at least one country that will not let you even open a bank account if you have a green card or US citizenship. Actually, even if you're a foreigner living in the US (student, H-1, etc), that country will not let you open a bank account - even if you are a citizen of that country. The rule is simple: If you have ties to the US that could require you reporting your bank account to the IRS, then you cannot open a bank account.
Funny story: Overseas, I can remember going through anti-money laundering training. The week after, I went to open a new bank account. When I told them I was a US citizen, the account rep said -- without missing a beat -- "Do you want to report?" Jeez. That question alone is probably enough to get that bank into trouble! Obviously, that person failed their own FACTA training...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance...
> FATCA also requires such persons to report their non-U.S. financial assets annually to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on form 8938, which is in addition to the older and further redundant requirement to report them annually to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) on form 114 (also known as 'FBAR')
What's ridiculous is that it also "requires" foreign banks to report details of accounts by US holders - even if the bank has no relation to the US.
Now, how do they actually enforce that supposed "obligation"? I do not know.
But it doesn’t surprise me. The US has already enforced it’s laws on foreign companies' dealing abroad merely because they had used dollars in their transactions.
And there are some instances of information sharing via tax treaty, but I haven't seen exact details on how it works.
Basically, ever since the IRS required you to report foreign accounts (2007 or 2008), some countries have made it harder for people based in the US to get accounts. They see it as an indirect means to collect intelligence by the US.
Furthermore, even under tax treaties, it is not uncommon for some part of your income to be double taxed due to differences in recognition and classification of income and foreign taxes paid. Americans often have to pay more taxes than if they only had to pay taxes in either country separately.
And this is on top of the onerous reporting overhead and other difficulties.
The embassy is for maintaining relations with foreign countries, not just passports and birth certificates (and pricey notary services). That seems like a sideshow. When it comes to services for the public, they appear to spend most of their time dealing with visa applicants, based on the crowds and lines I've seen. They also do offer assistance for missing persons abroad; if you have a relative that goes missing abroad the embassy will investigate. That seems nice of them. I assume other developed countries' embassies are basically the same though.
I guess to fit in your analogy I live underwater?
Additionally a government should think about practicality and fairness before it implements policy. It is impractical and excessively burdensome to try and tax residents of countries that aren’t the US. Despite your stated beliefs elsewhere, it does not take very much income or bizarre situations to wander into dicey tax situations that are frightening for the expat. A small business (which is taxable in the US if you net more than about $430) can mean difficult filing in the US. I don’t earn all that much, and I’ve spent a lot of this summer working on my US taxes for no purpose other than to have them piled up somewhere, unless some IRS agent decides to make my life much more difficult.
Where they do need to use it (such as registering a birth) it's usually replacing use of a different government office, had they not lived abroad.
Without their contributions the Unites States will be less successful, thereby "screwing" everybody in it.
This trend within United States is especially ironic and alarming considering that United States gained its success specifically by giving home to persecuted people from other countries with capacity for success. Conversely, other countries, some obvious examples being Nazi Germany and USSR, were not successful specifically because they forced out their successful people.
I mean what is the objective? Raise tax revenue from ex-pats, or drive them out of US citizenship? What's actually happening seems to be the latter, not so much the former. Surely that's a serious policy failure.
And that’s for the simple scenario of someone actually living in the US.
But is also is another issue altogether. How US citizens can bear with this and the lobbying that spawned it is beyond me.
As you say, it's more complex income sources and potentially deductions that lead to big accountant bills.
And you mention 1099s, i.e. self employed. Well, if you run a sole proprietorship as an expat, you still have to file US self-employment tax forms, and there are also QUARTERLY filing requirements with penalties for non-filing.
Or you need to get the paper certifying that your country has a totalization agreement with the US (not all do).
And since 1099 isn't a thing in EU, you have to file the US 'small business' tax form, which is actually 3-5 forms.
so as an expat, even what should be very straight forward turns into a massive mess.
Most of my knowledge of it comes from all the threads about Intuit's and H&R Block's lobbying regarding what IRS could and could not do to simplify tax filling.
If you don’t me asking. If it is as straightforward, what actually is the point in said lobbying?
Some people that work in especially high-paid sub-industries have a mistaken idea of what typical "technical enough to frequent this web site" (?!) people make.
And even if most software developers did make over $100K, it could still be a lot of money? The median income in USA as a whole looks to be about $52K, with $100K being about 83rd percentile (83% of USA makes less than $100K).
Sorry, what? Exactly how much technical ability does it take to frequent a website? You have the strangest delusion I've seen on HN and that's saying something.
Most software engineers in Europe, aside from freelancers, and probably the world, don’t make anywhere near $108k.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/north-kore...
In a country with higher taxes and a tax treaty you could earn $1M per year and never pay the IRS a dime.
It could even be said Americans are more at risk in those countries for being American and no other reason. So for people outside of that there won’t be any benefit.
I know a (thankfully small) handful of cases in which Americans' kids were arrested in a friendly country. The State Department provided invaluable support. (Recommendations on legal counsel, prudent next steps, relevant authorities' phone numbers...nothing nefarious, just context and support.)
I am under no illusion that I, with my resources, would get that sort of access. But it exists, and probably benefits U.S. international business concerns. Since this article concerns itself with rich overseas Americans, I think it's relevant.
One thing the US has is more bargaining power to force early release of some people accused of crimes (like Liangelo Ball in China, Anne Sacoolas in UK). That's significant leverage, but again: most people will never find themselves in that situation. But even then it's not like other countries will not imprison you if you're American.
Not many millionaires are getting arrested in general, due to the availability of lawyers and so on.
The US support might be very relevant for a war reported captured by ISIS.
But most millionaires are not going to be in those locations and/or able to afford good private security.
Are we? I’ve been told to use my other passport if ever in a situation like that. Are there any stats that support either case?
It's not unheard of, that dual citizens renounce their more or less vaguely authoritarian citizenship when it's too dangerous to live or visit there with a dual one. Since then the other state has no obligation to intervene and is even blocked from reigning into the affairs of another nation.
Is it because every single US diplomatic relation is in one way or other tied to the military?
If a jibali captures an operator then fair enough. The US is very preachy about their soldiers. But for a civilian to think about that as a benefit is just wild.
It's not like the US made this up. The Roman citizens had this protection too as they wandered the globe.
Last year, Navy SEALs from the Navy's Special Mission Unit parachuted in the dead of night to save a missionary. When's the last time the armed forces of Brunei did that? Or DRC? Or Azerbaijan? The answer is never. Intent != capability. I'm sure Paraguay wishes they could put commandos on the ground anywhere in the world in hours, but the fact is that they can't.
Being American is like having an American Express Card: membership has its privileges.
How thorny a situation has to be? Because I'm aware of a case when an American couldn't bring his own children to the states because his ex wife didn't consent to issue them American passports. Petitions, letters to the embassy and his congressman, nothing helped. A 3rd world country his ex wife's a citizen of had no issue with consents, it just issued passports allowing her to get the kids and leave the country they were residing in.
This is also how it works with other countries (e.g., Russia). They'll help if they get something out of it, or won't give a damn otherwise.
Navy SEALs from the Navy SMU parachuted into Africa in the dead of night to save a missionary kidnapped from a known conflict zone, killing 6 of 7 combatants (one wonders if they let the last guy go to spread Fear amongst his fellows). Perhaps some of you had different experiences (and/or perhaps the State Department really, really wanted you to leave), but that doesn't erase the rescue of Americans such as this man:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nigeria_hostage_rescue
We sent the best of the best in to save him. Not the JV team, the varsity. Before you whine, ask yourselves if perhaps there was some motive to telling you that nobody would help you if you didn't leave. Maybe they were trying to manage their risk.
That could have been just Trump pandering to his base.
Moreover, from your link:
> Additionally American aid worker Jeffery Woodke was kidnapped from Abalak in October 2016, and is believed to be held in Mali.
How come no SEALs have parachuted to rescue Jeffery yet, huh? Reinforces my theory that it was just election-time pandering by Trump.
You're telling me that the US will do that for every Tom, Dick and Harry who gets caught by some $EVILDOER anywhere on this planet? Fat chance!
> The last I heard, the Houthis let the Americans go.
But how did they get out? Who picked them up?
That's pretty weak, you have to admit. Wouldn't Obama send the same men in to save a citizen? I think he would. This is undeniably what our military is for, what those special mission units are for, and what those operators live for. They went in to do God's Work, and luckily this time it worked with no Good Guy casualties. Why would you doubt this?
> How come no SEALs have parachuted to rescue Jeffery yet, huh? Reinforces my theory that it was just election-time pandering by Trump.
Maybe because they don't have actionable intel to find and fix him? Maybe because the Bad Guys weren't so stupid as to use something that would show up on our various SIGINT collection platforms? It's not always a great big Trumpian conspiracy.
> But how did they get out? Who picked them up?
The Omani military, our allies. I suspect more than one person on that flight didn't have an Omani passport.
You know who did get involved in our situation when I was with a group of mixed citizens from USA, UK, EU etc...? The UK and Denmark. France, the USA and Germany all did nothing at all.
This myth that the USA will save citizens from any situation needs to die. It's untrue and dangerous since it encourages Americans to do stupid things because they are convinced the Marines or Seals will come save them.
It is provably true the US does send armed forces in to save citizens, and it is obviously true that many other countries simply lack the ability to do so. That isn't a license to be stupid, but it is a differentiator between countries with true power projection capabilities and those who don't have the same.
Many citizenship's include extraterritorial benefits, but few of them are as aggressive with foreign income.
It's a fair question which countries approaches are the most effective, but this is hardly unique.
If there is an act of war or natural disaster, the U.S. is good at extracting its citizens. There is also a decent precedent of negotiating to release people taken hostage or held prisoner by unfriendly regimes. (Or causing a fuss when Americans are harmed in a friendly country.) That, in turn, has a deterrent effect.
For Americans with access to legal counsel and the State Department, the benefits expand. Rich, overseas Americans thus present a unique free-rider problem.
Such a gruesome story: Kenyan sources supported Israel, and in the aftermath of the operation, Idi Amin issued orders to retaliate and slaughter several hundred Kenyans then present in Uganda. There were 245 Kenyans in Uganda killed and 3,000 fled.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idi_Amin
Amin first escaped to Libya, where he stayed until 1980, and ultimately settled in Saudi Arabia, where the Saudi royal family allowed him sanctuary and paid him a generous subsidy in return for staying out of politics.[18] Amin lived for a number of years on the top two floors of the Novotel Hotel on Palestine Road in Jeddah.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455590/
Movie The Last King of Scotland is Based on the events of the brutal Ugandan dictator Idi Amin's regime as seen by his personal physician during the 1970s.
Since we are stepping out of playing world police, we have stopped doing that FYI in the past 15-20 years incrementally so. This ain't the late 20th century anymore.
So let’s drop this extraterritorial benefits stuff. No benefit the US has provided has been worth the worry, anger, and tedium of trying to be tax compliant in a situation where it’s impossible to be truly compliant (thanks to how irreconcilable foreign arrangements often are to US tax law).
https://americanexpatfinance.com/news/item/782-state-dept-re...
Not sure about actual benefits. The US passports is one of the worst when it comes to travel. Many countries have stricter entry rules only for US citizen, or require at least a higher Visa fee in comparison to other Western nations or outright don't allow US citizens entry at all. I found my Austrian passport to be actually extremely beneficial. Most powerful passport is still from Singapore when it comes to extraterritorial benefits.
In terms of getting people out of thorny situations, countries which don't have citizenship based tax laws are also pretty good at that, if not even better, because the US has in fact a lot of scarred relations with other nations whereas other Western nations have it easier to get a country pull some strings in order to get their people out.
100% wrong! US passport is ranked 7th best in the world. You need very few visas and get waved through customs faster than visitors from most other countries.
* https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/2021/07/07/where-does-...
* https://www.thenationalnews.com/business/2021/07/07/the-worl...
Definitely. But comparing the benefits of US citizenship to that of, say, Venezuela or Tchad would be pointless, now, wouldn’t it?
Also because I suspect the population here to likely be mostly from Western countries. Cf dang’s comment[1] stating that 50% of the userbase is from the US
But I see your point, and we’ll probably have to settle on agreeing to disagree.
ding You've just discovered another hidden trick that the ultra-wealthy use to minimize their tax-burdens: in each year, they travel and ensure they do not reside long enough in each country to be considered resident fir tax purposes.
India is the opposite. You can work on a boat get paid in India and owe no taxes.
Then that's the difference.
American citizens can collect Social Security while residing in foreign countries. Same with VA benefits.
It is the 'putting in' part which depends on residency.
That would seem.....unfair.
"One example discussed was Kenneth Dart of Dart Container, who had become a citizen of Belize and then attempted to obtain a diplomatic visa to serve as Belize's new consul in Sarasota, Florida."
> The Department of Homeland Security has stated that they cannot obtain the information required to enforce the amendment unless the former U.S. citizen "affirmatively admit[s]" his or her reasons for renouncing citizenship, and so from 2002 to 2015, only two people were denied entry to the United States on the grounds of the amendment.
"The wording of the statute is embarrassing. How can an alien renounce U.S. citizenship? In what capacity would said alien do so officially? One assumes that a court of law would find the language incoherent and unenforceable ... This is the way we legislate at 5 o'clock in the morning 4 days before adjournment."
Nice to see lawmakers falling to the specter of trying to get that commit in for the next release, along with the rest of us.
Legal documents aren't code, but they do share many of the same principles and constraints - GIGO applies to both programs and contracts...
> The IRS publishes a quarterly list of the names of people who have renounced their citizenship or given up their green cards, but it only includes people with global assets over $2 million
It may be an arbitrary line, but if so, it's the IRS drawing it.
> Gibbons expected that the list would include only "a handful of the wealthiest of the wealthy" motivated solely by taxes; however, the people named in the list turned out to have a wide variety of motivations for emigrating from the U.S. and later giving up citizenship, and few were publicly known to be wealthy.[7]
> ...In contrast, Andrew Mitchel, a Connecticut tax lawyer interviewed by The Wall Street Journal for its reports on Americans giving up citizenship, states that the list is required to include all former citizens. [15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarterly_Publication_of_Indiv...
This claim is total crap. The list includes all US citizens who renounce their citizenship, regardless of their net worth. [1]
You also cannot renounce your citizenship for tax dodging [2]:
> Persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware of the fact that renunciation of U.S. citizenship may have no effect on their U.S. tax or military service obligations (contact the Internal Revenue Service or U.S. Selective Service for more information).
So plan to become rich after renouncing (and without the IRS noticing).
[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/quarterly-publication-of-ind...
[2] https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-lega...
E. TAX & MILITARY OBLIGATIONS /NO ESCAPE FROM PROSECUTION
Persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware of the fact that renunciation of U.S. citizenship may have no effect on their U.S. tax or military service obligations (contact the Internal Revenue Service or U.S. Selective Service for more information). In addition, the act of renouncing U.S. citizenship does not allow persons to avoid possible prosecution for crimes which they may have committed or may commit in the future which violate United States law, or escape the repayment of financial obligations, including child support payments, previously incurred in the United States or incurred as United States citizens abroad.
I read that as saying "If you owe the IRS money already, renouncing your citizenship isn't going to get you out of paying it".
>So plan to become rich after renouncing (and without the IRS noticing).
Do you have any other sources that corroborate this? I've certainly never heard of the IRS coming after someone for money they've earned after renouncing citizenship, except perhaps in complex cases involving international companies.
You just pay an exit tax, which is a percentage of your total wealth. The exit tax only applies if your total wealth is over 2 million (or less than that if you haven’t been filing properly).
https://americansoverseas.org/en/knowledge-centre/us-taxes-a...
You are correct in that the IRS chose this number.
No taxation without representation.
The "no taxation without representation" was a slogan applied after the fact.
Do you have any evidence of this?
This is exactly why these people are renouncing US citizenship: They’re living overseas as citizens of another country and, like anyone rich or poor, don’t want to be paying taxes to a country they aren’t living in.
It’s not exactly unfair or nefarious. If they’re no longer living in the US and they are citizens and residents of another country, surrendering US citizenship is a logical choice.
Renouncing US citizenship is a common move for this exact reason. This article just happens to have drawn an arbitrary line in the wealth of people who renounce US citizenship and made a headline out of the wealthier subset. The wealthy are also more like to have dual-citizenship but relocate to another country, so they’d be over represented in this set.