That’s because they can. Every country in the world would gladly do the same (Who doesn’t like some extra money?), they just lack the economic and military power the US have to enforce it.

I don't think so. Do you think Britain taxed individuals living outside their jurisdiction pre-WWII when they were top dog? The US has also been doing this long before they were a superpower. Its been done for over a 100 years.

It’s been done this way since the revolutionary war. It was meant as a punishment for any American born defector to the British. It is still a punishment.

But worse, it hurts American competitiveness abroad. Go to Hong Kong, Dubai, Singapore, etc, and you will find tons of British, Australians, Canadians, etc etc. but only a very small number of Americans relative to the populations.

> It’s been done this way since the revolutionary war.

Are you sure about that? I thought expat taxation was instituted during the Civil War.

Other countries have to send their citizens abroad to find work isnt the most compelling argument.

“Have to”? I am referring to investment bankers, lawyers, business owners. These are people who, because they have the flexibility to live anywhere and pay local taxes, move to these areas to take advantage of local opportunities, and the vast majority end up restricting those earnings in their home country later in life. It is a huge opportunity, similar to manifest destiny.

Won't someone think about the bankers and the lawyers! It is a wonder why the people have not risen up and demanded these groups pay no taxes.

Jest aside, you pointed out that indeed these expats return.

The argument is they benefited from the US before they left and will benefit when they come back. Why should they pay no taxes and expect to watlz back in whenever they please without having paid something to keep the country running. They also expect the country to send seal team 6 if they get abducted.

There might be some valid points about the level of tax liability, but to think people should pay no tax on foreign earning is absurd.

Not all expats are bankers or lawyers. I’m a (non-expat) Australian, my brother used to live in Oregon-managing agricultural labourers on a vineyard. I don’t know what he was getting paid, but I doubt anywhere near as much as a lawyer or banker. He probably would have stayed, except his marriage (to an American) broke down. If an Australian can work in agriculture in the US, I’m sure the reverse can happen too. They’ll get screwed as much as a lawyer or banker will-just they’ll be less able to afford specialist tax advice, probably less aware they might need it (until some day it bites them)

> They also expect the country to send seal team 6 if they get abducted.

You know, other countries sometimes rescue their citizens overseas-without citizenship-based taxation. In fact, I don’t think any English-speaking countries do a particularly good job of saving their citizens in foreign trouble. If I was ever kidnapped by terrorists, I’d be wishing I was French

> There might be some valid points about the level of tax liability, but to think people should pay no tax on foreign earning is absurd.

Can something really be “absurd” when literally every country in the world does it-except for the US and Eritrea?

Citizens of other countries act as liaisons abroad to bring in their network and raise the GDP of their origin country by getting it involved in business it never would have heard of.

When I am involved, I shutdown anything that involves the US and can't be solved with a similar partner in Canada or Europe, without all the hassle.

You get what you pay for.

> Why should they pay no taxes and expect to watlz back in whenever they please without having paid something to keep the country running.

Indeed, why should Americans expect the same treatment that literally every other country extends to its citizens.

Even many Americans seem to feel that they don't, which is presumably why they fight so hard against their interests because of "socialism". It is amusing seeing them gasp in amazement when they're not bankrupted for getting simple medical procedures overseas.

Because when they weren't in the country, they were not exacting the costs of a human in the system. Their healthcare and other needs were being attended to overseas and they paid for them via taxes to the country they resided in.

> Every country in the world would gladly do the same

Source? I think this is a particularly crass view of the world and it’s various governments’ motivations. Not every government is as hostile to its populace’s wellbeing as the US.

Because US citizens, such as Brittney Griner, expect the US govt to help them when something goes wrong when they are working overseas.

> Because US citizens, such as Brittney Griner, expect the US govt to help them when something goes wrong when they are working overseas.

Other countries don't seem to have a problem extending consular assistance to their overseas citizens.

The US government also actually tends to do a bad job* about things like this (i.e. evacuating citizen’s from foreign countries). So you have to pay the taxes but probably can’t count on the government to help. Now, I actually think all US citizens should pay their taxes, but it should be far more fair and reasonable than it currently is (we are basically just creating massive PITA for people while probably not catching offshore millionaires/billionaires.) The fact that you are forced to pay taxes but then will have to try to hitch a ride out of the country with Canada is unacceptable.

* https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-tra... https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/16/us/politics/us-evacuation...

The real question is, does the US provide all the consular services to its citizens for free because of the taxation?

I know that a lot of other countries levy fees on their citizens for some services, especially those that are "nice to have" but not all that important.

Jesus, man, consular assistance should not be contingent on income.

That's a disgusting idea.