USA can't tax non-citizens. Revoke citizenship if you really don't want to pay. That comes with a lot of downsides though (no more US passport, no getting rescued by the US if you wander into North Korea, etc), which implies the taxes aren't for nothing just because you live out-of-country.

Ask Tinkov [1] about revoking citizenship.

[1] https://www.expatriationattorneys.com/tinkov-conceal-foreign...

Maybe first ask him why he did tax fraud and not revoke his citizenship?

> USA can't tax non-citizens. Revoke citizenship if you really don't want to pay. That comes with a lot of downsides though (no more US passport, no getting rescued by the US if you wander into North Korea, etc), which implies the taxes aren't for nothing just because you live out-of-country.

The USA can, and does, tax non-citizens. Many countries tax non-citizens. Go out and buy a foreign stock-they will tax you on earnings or dividends. Go visit a country and pay the local sales tax.

What he meant was that the USA can't levy income tax on non-citizens living in other countries.

If I don't complete my FACTA compliance forms with my Australian bank every 2-3 years to (re)confirm that I am an Australian, living in Australia, using my Australian bank account then my bank will withhold certain amounts to cover my supposed obligations to the IRS.

Sure smells a lot like levying tax on non-citizens living in other countries.

Do all Australian banks now require that or is it because you work in some sector, like import/export?

All banks

You may be surprised to learn the huge role that US federal reserve policy plays in messing with the fortunes of many countries around the world.

It's quite easy to argue that handing over such power to a single government is in fact a large tax on every non-US citizen.

> What he meant was that the USA can't levy income tax on non-citizens living in other countries.

I did not see that in his comment. He said tax. You are making a pretty big leap.

Your comment is wrong too and here is the IRS link on when nonresident aliens have to file American taxes. https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/taxa...

> I did not see that in his comment. He said tax. You are making a pretty big leap.

No, that's exactly what I meant. It's implied from context that I am talking about taxation of people living in other countries. The bit I was directly replying to from root post:

> The US government is so powerful, they are the only country that enforces a draconian global taxation scheme on any citizen or person who has ever held a US green card, even after they permanently leave the country.

So I replied:

"USA can't tax non-citizens. Revoke citizenship if you really ..."

Dodging taxes is not a valid reason to renounce citizenship in the US of A and having renounced citizenship for of "tax reasons" is a question on the standard ESTA form. If you check "yes", you can't enter the US.

So, legally speaking, you not only lose citizenship but also the right to ever step foot on American soil again, no matter which other citizenship you gain.

Of course, you can just lie about your reasons on the forms.

> Revoke citizenship if you really don't want to pay.

N.B.: you have to pay to revoke citizenship.

Pretty far fetched benefits

> enforces a draconian global taxation scheme on any citizen or person who has ever held a US green card, even after they permanently leave.

That's not quite true. If you _return_ your green card ("abandon it"), you no longer have to pay taxes. This makes sense as a parallel to being a US citizen, who would pay taxes even if they lived abroad.

I'm not saying it's right, but we need to be accurate.

Even those who officially abandoned their green cards are subject to FATCA for life and often struggle to open bank accounts abroad.

That's false. FATCA only applies to American taxpayers like U.S. businesses[1], citizens, greencard holders, and other residents [2]. It does not apply to nonresident illegal aliens, former citizens, or nonresident former greencard holders.

[1] In this context, including foreign businesses that file a U.S. tax return. [2] Note that for FATCA purposes, if a person is a US taxpayer for any portion of the year, they are subject to FATCA compliance purposes for that tax year no matter how much of that year was actually spent as a US taxpayer. However, if they are not a US taxpayer at the end of the year, they would not be subject to FATCA compliance for the following year.

Yes, theoretically. Practically though when one applies to open an account they will be asked "do you have or have you ever had a US address or phone number? Have you ever had a greencard? Have you ever had SSN? Were you a subject to US taxation?" and single YES would lead to rejection. For banks which make a few bucks per year per customer dealing with anyone who remotely could be a subject to FATCA is just not worth it.

No, not theoretically.

FATCA does not apply once you are no longer a US taxpayer. Moreover, the FATCA regime has been copied by so many other countries (including the EU) that there is now a global version of FATCA called CRS (and the procedural system for implementing CRS is known as AEOI).

FATCA is now considered the least burdensome implementation of CRS, which has been implemented by all OECD countries, China, India, and Brazil.

If a bank is turning you down because you answered "YES" to the FATCA question, the problem isn't FATCA. The bank is trying to avoid an audit and it's a huge red flag not to do business with them.

I'm sorry, it's not that simple.

Banks are run by people and they are private businesses. Humans don't follow laws like computers follow instruction, we are flawed creatures. Businesses will mitigate risks wherever possible, and refuse to work with customers who carry added risk all the time.

While in theory this shouldn't be causing people trouble and preventing people from getting locked out of the banking system or forcing them into unfair agreements, in reality, it is.

It turns out government regulation has unintended consequences. Just because it's "wrong" for them to interpret the regulation in this way, doesn't change the fact that many many established, legitimate banks are doing it "wrong." Nor does it help the people suffering the consequences to point your finger back at the wording of the regulation and say "Ackshually..."

It really is that simple. This has been part of my job for the past decade+ and it has not been an issue for Americans to open up bank accounts in foreign countries at respectable banks in at least a decade.

If a foreign bank won't open an account for you because you were once American, the problem is that the bank has something to hide. Full stop. End of story.

The fact that some countries started mimicking FATCA does not make it less idiotically counterproductive and stupidly wasteful. Not to mention it undermining international law and making this world less stable of course.

> The US government is so powerful, they are the only country that enforces a draconian global taxation scheme on any citizen or person who has ever held a US green card […]

While it may be true that they are the only ones able to do it effectively, there are some other countries with citizenship-based taxation. According to Wikipedia[0] these currently are: Hungary, Eritrea, Myanmar and Tajikistan

Some other countries have similar policies for tax heavens.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_taxation#Citizen...

There's not a bank on earth (that isn't headquarted in said countries) that is voluntarily sharing information with Eritrea, Myanmar, etc.

I'm going to venture a wild guess: it may not be that difficult to hide assets from the short arms of the Tajikistani tax office.

So I don't think it's crazy to assume Americans are the only ones suffering under this policy in practice.

And then there is FATCA and CRS : when opening a bank account for my non-profit I had to answer 15 pages of questions related to me, other directors and the non-profit itself. I'm a non-US citizen outside of the US.

>The US government is so powerful [...] can invent legal grounds to do pretty much anything to anyone

Sounds like what a totalitarian king would do.

"In vain they change from a single person to a few. These few have the passions of the one; and they unite to strengthen themselves, and to secure the gratification of their lawless passions at the expense of the general good. In vain do we fly to the many. The case is worse; their passions are less under the government of reason, they are augmented by the contagion, and defended against all attacks by their multitude." - Edmund Burke, 1756.