A couple of days ago in a reply to the thread about Shulman not accepting a second term as IRS Commissioner, Roger Conklin wrote this:
“Petros, Allow me to make one important clarification: I think you will find that the Expat community voted heavily in favor of Obama because during his campaign he comitted to “level the playling field” for US citizens living abroad. He was very clear in this. But once elected he promptly did nothing to keep this vote-getting commitment. ACA leadership has made many attempts to follow him up on this commitment, but the response has been absolutey zero. It is if this commitment had never been made. His actions speak much louder than his words. I suspect and sincerely hope that in this next election the vote will be very lopsided against him. To those of you who are expats, please keep this in mind.”
*******
I became very curious about this as I was completely unaware of it and so went looking for information about it. As a starting point, I came across this (emphasis added):
http://obama.3cdn.net/610c7f29ee85b124a3_3cm6bxltu.pdf
Americans abroad are uniquely aware of the impact that our government’s policies have on the rest of the world and recognize that it’s time for America to be seen as a global leader once more. Facing terrorism, climate change, global AIDS, or the spread of weapons of mass destruction, America cannot meet these challenges on its own, and the world cannot defeat them without America. As president, Obama will restore America’s moral leadership in the world and the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity. Obama understands the special concerns and issues of Americans living abroad and will seek to address these as president.
Strengthen Economic Security for Americans Abroad:
Barack Obama believes that the U.S. government should pay close attention to how American citizens are treated in the private sector while they live and work abroad. Our government must work to ensure that overseas Americans have every chance to compete on a level playing field, and he will work with Americans abroad to identify and understand problems they may face as a result of U.S. government policies.
Responding to Social Security Concerns:
As president, Obama will make sure that the Social Security Administration guidelines on receiving Social Security benefits abroad are made more accessible to overseas Americans. He will ensure that the U.S. State Department works with U.S. embassies and U.S. consulates, which are usually the point of contact for Social Security beneficiaries living abroad, to ensure that embassy officials are properly trained on Social Security issues..
Citizenship Transmission:
Each year, several thousand children of Americans living abroad are denied U.S. citizenship, and some are born “stateless,” without any nationality or citizenship. Barack Obama is committed to addressing these effects on travel abroad, immigration of family members, and citizenship in a manner that protects American interests. In an Obama administration, the U.S. State Department will work to ensure that U.S. regulations on reporting the birth of a child born to an American parent abroad are more widely communicated to Americans living abroad. Obama will also work to ensure U.S. embassies andconsulates streamline the citizenship claim process for American children born abroad.
Voting Procedures:
Obama supports vigorous efforts to ensure that American citizens abroad have the ability to exercise their voting rights. He supports efforts like “VoteFromAbroad.org” that seek to make the overseas voting process more transparent and accessible for Americans abroad. Obama supports theOverseas Vote Act, the Overseas Voting Practical Amendments Act of 2007, and full funding to implement the Help America Vote Act.
Census of Americans Abroad:
The U.S. Census currently does not count American citizens living outside the U.S. Obama supports efforts to find an efficient and accurate procedure to count Americans living abroad in the U.S. Census.
Concerns of Americans Living Abroad:
Obama believes it is important to understand the role of Americans abroad in determining U.S. policy. Obama will work with members of the Americans abroad community and the U.S. embassies to determine how the U.S. government can be responsive to the concerns of overseas Americans. As a U.S. Senator, Obama has taken seriously the concerns of all Illinoisans, whether they are currently in Illinois or not. As president, Obama will work to establish a direct dialogue with Americans abroad.
Other Governmental Services and Benefits:
Americans living abroad have little access to basic information about U.S. government services and affairs. Barack Obama believes that U.S. embassies and consulates, which are the main U.S. government contact points for Americans abroad, should develop and implement concrete plans on how to communicate basic information to Americans living abroad. Additionally, Obama supports efforts to ensure that U.S. State Department staff members have proper training to assist Americans abroad in determining their various rights and responsibilities as American citizens. He welcomes a continued dialogue between the White House, the State Department, and citizens abroad in an Obama administration.
I suppose none of these ideas are new to us but it was certainly new to me that we were promised this by a future Obama presidency. At the time though, I would not have realized the ramifications as I was blissfully ignorant at that point of FUBAR, FATCA, OVDI, etc. I now wish I had simply not voted in 2008.
I am especially amused at the mention that “several thousand children of Americans living abroad are denied U.S. citizenship; we certainly don’t seem to have a problem with that here in Canada. The US retroactively applies citizenship here; anyone know where this is happening? And if so, is this just due to a 2nd country not recognizing dual citizenship? It would be nice to hear if there will indeed, be any efforts to set up a Census as well as seeing that DOS trains staff to assist in “determining their various rights and responsibilities as American citizens.” Perhaps something more than a line buried in the back of passports?
Great post, nobledreamer!! Thanks for that eye-opener. What can we do to bring those former promises back into the light of day?
Reblogged this on Renounce U.S. Citizenship – Be Free.
This is the Obama I voted for.
Thank you calgary411!
The more I look, the more interesting this becomes, at least in connection with the fact that we are now looking at an election in November. Hopefully, those who knew this in 2008 and are aware that none of it came about, will take it into account before casting a ballot in November.
More information on the support Obama got from expats in 2008:
http://www.economist.com/node/11870194
America’s expatriate voters
Home thoughts from abroad
Could expatriate voters influence America’s presidential election?
Aug 9th 2008
AMERICA’S presidential candidates have made a point of travelling far afield this year, in part to win over voters sceptical of their foreign-policy credentials. Barack Obama took his campaign on a tour of Europe and the Middle East; John McCain, to much less fanfare, travelled to Mexico, the Middle East and Latin America. Whatever the polls of opinion in other countries show—and they are usually highly favourable towards Mr Obama—the only votes that really matter are those of Americans. But not all of those voters are back at home.
American expatriates may have had only a small impact on the past few elections but they are keenly following this one. So far they have contributed much more money than in previous campaigns. And there are signs that by polling day in November, they may also turn that interest into power at the ballot box.
Roughly 6m Americans live abroad. This scattered diaspora, taken as a whole, wields a voting power larger than half of the states in the union. The overseas population includes well-heeled bankers in London and other financial centres around the world. But it is also composed of several hundred thousand soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, or stationed at other overseas military bases. In recent elections, though, these potential votes have not shown up in significant numbers on election day.
The 2006 election that saw Democrats sweep to power in Congress did not come close to drawing the kind of attention that this year’s presidential race has seen—whether at home or abroad. The overseas vote two years ago was tiny. Of those 6m Americans overseas, not even 1m were registered to vote.
Technical problems, bureaucratic hoops (voters must register with the state where they last resided) and the difficulties of actually getting a vote to count all played a part in keeping turnout low. Two-thirds of the ballots fell foul of these problems. Another 10% missed the deadline altogether. All told, only 330,000 ballots (5.5% of American expats) actually wound up counting in a total of 82m ballots cast that year. That is roughly the same as the total population of just one mid-sized American city, such as Tampa, Florida.
Since then the campaign teams, as well as various pressure groups, have noticed the problems and the potential rewards of winning over Americans abroad. Mr Obama runs a blog for Americans abroad on his campaign website. The Democrats have a group that is attempting to organise supporters in foreign countries: the party held a “global primary” in February with a record turnout of more than 20,000. They favoured Mr Obama heavily. Overseas Democrats will send 22 delegates to the national convention in August. Gwyneth Paltrow, a Hollywood actress, has made an advert urging American expats to vote for Mr Obama. George Clooney will host a fundraising event for Mr Obama in Geneva, in September. The Republican Party has its own group that oversees chapters around the world and is helping to rally Mr McCain’s supporters.
The candidates are chasing money from abroad, too, either by turning up open-palmed themselves or by sending prominent advisers and friends to fundraising dinners abroad. Britain is by far the top fundraising destination. Rudy Giuliani—a failed candidate for the Republican nomination—led the way. He made headlines last September when he visited London to raise funds. Even Ron Paul, a libertarian and a long-shot for the Republican nomination, managed to raise more than $100,000 from overseas voters.
Though some candidates, such as John Edwards, struggled to prise cash from overseas Americans (only American citizens, not foreigners, can contribute money) the field as a whole set new records. By the end of April, they had raised a total of more than $2.6m, according to the Centre for Responsive Politics, a think-tank in Washington, DC.
Unsurprisingly, the charismatic Mr Obama has also done the best, raising more than $1.4m from expats. That is peanuts compared with total funds raised—Mr Obama raked in $52m in June alone—but the overseas tally has increased markedly this year. The total raised is more than double that of 2004 and five-times the figure from 2000. The candidates’ global search for supporters is yet another twist in a campaign for the presidency of a country sometimes reluctant to look beyond its own shores.
I saw this mention of a tax conference that Finance Minister Flaherty is attending today.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/
April 10, 2012
Bush Center Hosts Conference Today on Tax Policies for 4% Growth
The George W. Bush Presidential Center hosts a conference today on Tax Policies for 4% Growth: Evidence from the States, American History, Markets, and Nations (live webcast here):
In this election year, Americans are deeply concerned about taxes and what they mean to our economic future. At all levels, budgetary emergencies are provoking calls for tax rate increases or new levies, either of which could damage U.S. competitiveness and ultimately our standard of living. Now is the time to look carefully at U.S. states, at other nations, and at historical periods where high levels of growth were achieved and ask the question: What tax system helped produce this growth? That is the focus of this Bush Institute conference, the second part of an exploration of taxes and growth. Among the participants in New York will be:
George W. Bush
Sam Brownback (Governor of Kansas)
Chris Christie (Governor of New Jersey)
Mary Fallin (Governor of Oklahoma)
Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, Canada)
Paul R. LePage (Governor of Maine)
Paul Ryan (Chair, House Budget Committee)
Steve Forbes (Forbes Media)
Paul A. Gigot (Wall Street Journal)
Edward P. Lazear (Stanford University)
Lawrence B. Lindsey (Lindsey Group)
Robert E. Litan (Kauffman Foundation)
Pamela H. Patsley (MoneyGram International)
John B. Taylor (Stanford University)
Brilliant post. Also, during the election of 2008, Dems Abroad put up a banner on their web site that encouraged Americans Abroad to speak out on the “Bush Tax Hike” on Americans Abroad and to help the Democrats overturn that. This was in response to the TIPRA law that weakened FEIE in order to raise revenues to pay for tax cuts for American’s onshore.
After the election, that banner came down and there was no action to restore the original, un-stacked FEIE. Instead, the onslaught was quietly beginning from the newly super-powerful party.
I complained to a Dems Abroad official that I felt like we had been used to get Obama and the Congress elected. She got really defensive and said that the FEIE was very generous and this should ot be an issue. I pointed out that she has a dual income with a foreign husband and no children and that she left a state that does not stack on top of federal. She has no idea of how stingy the FEIE is and it will be a lot more stingy if the dollar continues to fall. She got frustrated when I pointed out that the dollar has fallen by 30% in 6 years and that has a serious impact to tax rates and the FEIE on Americans Abroad. It effectively wipes out their retirement though taxation on top of that. She said he’s not a tax expert and walked away.
BTW – She is now one of the Dems Abroad’s officials on FATCA and Tax concerns of Americans living abroad.
They’re all aiming for a position in the party apparatchik when they get back to the states…
Reblogged this on Stop Unconstitutional Double Taxation.
Obama represented hope for so many of us, but he has disappointed lots of folks.
Actually, with respect to all who voted for him: Obama ran for president because he could; he found himself in an interesting position, and like most politicians on a national level would have done, he decided to go for it and say everything that played well with the voters. He was no great change agent as he claimed. If he was, he would not have had a voting record that pretty much fell in line with the party whip on just about everything he voted on.
Like most politicians, he will do or say whatever it takes to get elected and stay there, but he says it oh-so-well, and continue to sounds really good in his delivery.
(We have a similar problem with David Cameron in the UK: Tory party members keep expecting him to take his liberal mask off to reveal a – small-c – conservative underneath.)
Real change agents aren’t allowed anywhere near the top of the ticket for either party. Too many political livelihoods are involved. American politics is big business. It is probably bigger, in terms of potential payoffs for those providing the capital (i.e. campaign funding), than banking. The returns are greater…
Lehmann Brothers contributed $500k to campaigns in 2008, Goldman Sachs contributed $20m. In terms of the AIG bailout alone, where they were allowed to be in the room during negotiations with the Treasury dept. and were repaid 100% of their paper, Goldman Sachs got an ROI of 4,000%. That’s better than actually lending money to small businesses to create jobs, without the troublesome overhead of customers.
I suspect the only way these laws that affect us are going to be turned around is if a lot of money is put into campaign coffers around the country by people who live stateside. Or a real change agent is elected POTUS.
On both counts, I would say the likelihood meter measures in at “not bloody.”
@nobledreamer, Thanks so much for doing the research on this and thus makinging it abundantly clear Obama’s commitments made when seeking election. He sounded so believable that indeed he overwhelmingly won the votes of US citizens living abroad. But as always “the proof of the pudding comes in the eating,” and this is clearly a case of the pudding produced by his presidency bearing no resemblance whatsoever to what its preparer promised.
With respect to the comment on difficulties of US citizens passing their citizenship to children born abroad, it is not always easy. There is no difficulty passing citizenship if the mother, wed or unwed, is a US citizen (unless the birth is from an implanted egg), but there can be difficulties in provind paterniy if the unmarried father is a US citizenship. There are requirements that there be a written commitment that the father will provide financial support for the child.
I am personally aware of a US citizen who lives with his common-law Brazilian wife in a rather remote area in Brazil. They have 3 children, but since they were never legally married he has so fa (as of December 2011) been unable to secure US citizenshp for any of them. He told me in December when I last saw him that he had made 3 trips for meetings with Counsular officials in Brasilia but so far their citizenship has not been recognized. Given the massive tax responsibility onus that will ge hanging over them if they stay in Brazil, I have gently suggested that it may not be wise for him to pursue this effort, but he feels very strongly that confirming US citizenship will open opportunities for them to easily relocate to the US when they become older and are able to make decisions like this on their own.
@Roger
Thank you for pointing this out; I’m afraid I’ve developed a rather one-track mind as a result of confronting this situation last Fall.
I can imagine living in a remote area of Brazil, picturing the “old” US and wanting to do whatever it took to produce the best/as many possibilities for my child. I did exactly that as well. I never imagined the world could change so much and felt horrible when I realized the situation I’d put our son in. He has decided after all, to renounce. But will have to do the whole 5 yards to get out. It is unfortunate that your friend does not really seem to understand the consequences of achieving that citizenship. Maybe he could wait, given the current circumstances?
I never thought Obama would beat Hilary. I imagined the country was not ready for an African-American president. My sister finally got me to understand how excited people were about him; he was inspiring, fresh, etc. I heard his first speech after coming home from the movie “Frost/Nixon.” And I immediately jumped on the bandwagon. It was a hope that reappeared, one which I though had disappeared forever. What a shame, it was never real.
@zuludogm
I am not familiar with TIPRA, the George Bush Tax so I will add them to my (long) list of topics to read up on. I do not understand what you mean by “stacked” in terms of the FEIE. I notice you have mentioned a “state” and presume this is somehow connected to states who require citizens abroad to pay state tax? I have not even bothered to check whether that is the case in my situation or not. I feel like I’ve had enough bad news…. 🙁
I guess this woman was more interested in the excitement of the moment as opposed to really analyzing the situation and getting a clear picture of what has happened. Did she mean Obama was not a tax expert? If so, what on earth is that supposed to mean? I also imagine she knew of the tax/FBAR obligations so is not as worried as some of the rest of us. It’s appalling that she is advising others on FATCA, etc. As if it is a reasonable program that we should just accept being shoved down our throats.
@A Gentleman’s Rapier,
Excellent points. At my age, I shouldn’t be so naive and fall for the charm politicians are so capable of.
It’s totally disheartening to read those figures regarding Goldman Sach’s etc. Your statement, “That’s better than actually lending money to small businesses to create jobs, without the troublesome overhead of customers.” It makes me wonder why anyone in the world even tries anymore.
@nobledreamer, TIPRA included a provision which was added by Sen. Grassley (R. Iowa) just 10 minutes before it was passed by a majority senate vote. This provison related to the FEIE Foreign Earned Income Exclusion. Stacking, in this context means that the FEIE was “off the bottom,” that is at the lowest tax rate applicable to the FEIE amount (Curriently is $92.900, but it was a little lower back then). The non-excluded Income is now taxed at the higher marginal rate that would apply if the FEIE had not been excluded.
Senator Grassley has been a long time opponent of the FEIE itself, and if he had his way it would have been abolished long ago. Any way he can nibble at it, he grabs it.
Obama has been an opportunist from the get-go and even from the first months in the White House he has been willing to say what his audience wanted to hear. I can’t count how many
different causes he has claimed as “a top priority” on which he
and his administration are “focused like a laser.” After running up a deficit bigger than all previous Presidents combined, he still sanctimoniously claims that his piddling class-warfare Buffet tax will “stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade…this is math”. His math doesn’t add up, any more than his knowledge of the Constitution enlightens his defense of his legislative encroachments on individual rights. I voted for Ron Paul in 2008 (as a write-in) and I’ll do the same in 2012. There are some Republican Congress-critters who think citizen-based taxation should be abolished, but I doubt they will be able to budge the stone in front of that tomb (to use a seasonal reference), much less roll it away.
Even in the depths of a severe economic crisis, Americans don’t like to be treated as if they are stupid, which he seems to think they are.
Nobledreamer, i wonder if the IRS would accept this quote from Obama’s campaign as a “reasonable cause” for not knowing about filing FBARs: “Americans living abroad have little access to basic information about U.S. government services and affairs.
Barack Obama believes that U.S. embassies and consulates, which are the main U.S. government contact points for Americans abroad, should develop and implement concrete plans on how to communicate basic information to Americans living abroad. “
Yup, my sense of betrayal with Obama is just about complete after reading this lovely-sounding electioneering bumph. Takes me back to all that Hope and Change™ stuff that I actually allowed myself to believe in for a few short months, a couple of lifetimes ago.
Still, despite the dashed hope and lack of substantive change I would still vote for him, albeit unenthusiastically, and only because the alternative would surely be even worse (though let me make it crystal clear that I am NOT actually voting for anyone down there – ever – as I am no longer a US citizen).
The only faint hope now is for Mr. Obama to get back in touch with whatever he has left of a functioning conscience and make good on some of his original, sensible goals. Unfortunately, that’s a long way to back-pedal from the thin gruel of hollow platitudes we’ve been fed for the last few years.
My suggestion would be for the Obama campaign of 2012 to completely keep its mouth shut about Americans abroad, unless they can come up with some kind of miraculous evidence that they even give a shit about us, beyond being either milk cows or punching bags. Otherwise, don’t even bother – I don’t have enough forgiveness left in my heart for a repeat performance of this kind of cynical pandering. I hope Democrats Abroad don’t fall for it again either.
@Roger – I personally think there should be no need for an FEIE! Americans should be able to file a simple form and go to other countries. If anything, that fosters good will between citizens and the home government. The US *really* needs to re-think this policy.
This current US system just creates problems. I’m being put into a situation where I have to choose one country or the other. If anything, this just breeds anymosity. IF I have to “renouce or relinquish” US citizenship to be able to have bank accounts, why in the heck would I want to spend $1 dollar in the USA? I don’t…. not 1 penny.
What’s worse is this US expat-“solution” hasn’t changed in 50-100 years. We’ve had quite a few inventions in the last 50 years. If it weren’t for the internet, I never would have read about this country and ultimately moved here. The US solution needs to adapt with time.
This is why, ultimately, you can’t believe the garbage headlines you read in the news like “The NSA Super Computer That Detects Everything.” Gimme a break! If the US possessed SUCH a machine, this wouldn’t be an issue!! Those who owed taxes would be forced to cough-up. Everyone else like me would be left alone. I’m a darwinist, and I believe things change for a reason. The real question will be “how long can the US go without changing?”
@badger,
I was hoping we’d be able to get some coverage on Flaherty’s remarks at the Bush Conference today and here are some of our “straight-shooter’s” words:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/04/10/flaherty-us-parliamentary.html
http://hodgen.com/another-expatriation-driven-by-u-s-tax-complexity/
@RogerConklin,
Thanks for explaining that. Sometimes it’s a good thing not to earn too much money. 🙂 Isn’t there a similar bill in the works right now, authored by Sen Grassley, about getting rid of the FEIE altogether?
@foxyladyhawk
That’s a GREAT point! We should start using that. I thought Obama was a constitutional lawyer. ? While I can no longer vote, I guess you have a point. Ron Paul is interesting, I just have always been a little lefty and wouldn’t expect to agree with a Republican. He makes the most sense of anyone I’ve heard in the debates.
Nice to see you posting again! Always enjoy your point of view.
@ geez,
Let us do hope they never develop such a machine! 😉
@ Deckhard,
Maybe they should be quiet about Americans abroad but perhaps we should not be. My sister told me that a hundred people would come out on a Saturday to help phone, distribute literature etc. Every Saturday, in a neighborhood in a large metropolitan area. I read yesterday that there was this practice of people gathering on bridges all over the world, people were so excited about him. Your comments ring true to me.
@Nobledreamer, let me clarify that the provision which Sen. Grassley was able to tack on to TIPRA just minutes before it was voted on was for the purpose of generating additional revenue that was required in order to justify some other tax-reducing measure. His provision which introduced stacking, according to the Joint Tax Commission’s calculations, would generate enough additional revenue to cover that deficiency, so it was passed without any discussion or hearing on the what it would do to overseas Americans. Grassley has stated publically many times that as far as he is concerned US citizens living abroad serve no useful purpose and should not have any special tax privileges like exclusions from US tax on anyh of their income.
As far as I know there is currently no pending legislation to do away with FEIE, but that could rear its ugly head at any moment. It usually comes up more than once every year. If it were to be eliminated it would probably have little effect on US citizens living in Canada and other countries with tax rates higher than in the US, because they would be able to claim a foreign tax credit for the foreign tax on what was formerly excluded income, and still end up with a zero US tax liability as before.
But for US citizens in countries with radically different tax systems, for example those which have no income tax at all or a very low income tax because they raise their tax revenues through a different system, such as a high value added tax, hefty taxation of net worth amd/or a national sales tax, the elimination of FEIE would be fatal to them. That is because none of these non-income taxes are either usable for foreign tax credit purposes (because they are NOT an income tax) nor are they even deductible for US tax purpose calculations. Several of the Middle Eastern countries, for example have very low income taxes and some have no income tax at all for citizens of that country (wich of course includes dual nationals with US citizenship).. Eliminating the FEIE would be fatal to them. The US tax on $92,900, the current FEIE which is adjustable for inflation every year) is $19,627 for a single person. With the additional tax for such persons, many simply could not survive. And in many such countries with very different cultures renouning US citizenship and becoming a citizen of that country might not be a viable alternative for them. I am not familiar with the citizenship laws of those countries to know for sure if persons who are not of the national religion are even allowed to become naturalized citizens.
I am aware that in some countries trhe children of persons who are not adherents of the religion of the country are not permitted to be educated in the public school systems of those countries.
The naturalization laws of some countries are very different, even closer to home. It is different now, but up until a few years ago it was impossible to become a naturalized citizen of Mexico. the only exception was for foreigner who were long-term resididents of Mexico who could only become Mexican citizens by a special presidential decree. That was reserved for foreigners who had performed some worthy and notable service for that country. It used to be impossible to become a naturalized citizen of Japan and even persons born to a mixed Japanese-non-Japanese married couple were not citizens of Japan, even though born there. Some 25 years ago when I visited Japan, there was information in the hotel that indicated that foreign citizens wishing to marry Japanese citizens could only do so at the embassy of the foreign country since such marriates could otherwise not be effected in Japan. I believe this may also have changed fairly recently.
@nobledreamer – thanks, I had been looking to see if there was any coverage about whether Flaherty spoke.
There is so much flippancy in the public comments by the US in the face of Canadian objections to their plans to impose their programs on Canada and the rest of the world:
From an earlier article:
http://business.financialpost.com/2012/02/13/jim-flaherty-steps-up-to-object-to-u-s-banking-rule/
I particularly noted that the quote below from Volcker makes light of Canadian objections, and any “unintended consequences” – where he says “as with any new regulation, there will be opportunities later to deal with “unintended consequences.””” So in the meantime, if we use the FBARs as an example, then FATCA and the ‘Volcker rule’ are designed without any care at all to the ‘unintended consequences’ , or to what Geithner brushed off as within some kind of acceptable levels – acknowledging that there will be consequences, but, whatever fallout there is, it isn’t of any real interest to them as something to take into consideration or change – until after something happens (if then).
………… “Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve for whom the reform is named, brushed off the objections in an opinion piece published by the Financial Times on Monday.
Mr. Volcker confessed “total surprise” at the international reaction, noting “irony” in the fact that Europe is proposing a bank transaction tax and the UK is planning to “ring fence” trading and investment banks with the same risk-mitigating intentions as the rule that bears his name.
“I regret that the effect, if not the intent, of much of the lobbying has been to add complications rather than to clarify the principles involved,” Mr. Volcker wrote, adding that, as with any new regulation, there will be opportunities later to deal with “unintended consequences.””
Here’s another example: “in an earlier interview with Reuters, he (Volcker) suggested that if Canadian government bonds were to receive a desired exemption from the Volcker Rule, the U.S. might be expected to grant the same treatment to bonds of less solvent countries such as Greece.
“If we do it for the Canadians are we going to do it for the Greeks too, the Spanish, and, I don’t know, Somalia or something?” Mr. Volcker was quoted
as saying.” see – http://business.financialpost.com/2012/02/16/volcker-doesnt-have-a-vote-on-volcker-rule/
So that’s who we’re dealing with – someone who flippantly compares Canada to a failed state like Somalia – when talking about Canadian investments.
@Roger Conklin
Thanks once again, for your well-thought out and complete analysis of the factors involved and for sharing it. I want to spend some more time reading about these situations you describe; I had never thought of any country where gaining citizenship either was not possible or perhaps, desirable.
If Sen. Grassley thinks we are that useless and unimportant then what is his justification for us paying taxes in a country that has no use for us? And offers us no services?
I saw the reference to the FEIE being in danger, on the ACA website:
Another attack on Americans abroad
Another attack on the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion (FEIE) is on the way in Congress. According to H.R. 2495, the FEIE would be reduced to zero, subjecting all income earned abroad to US tax.
H.R. 2495 (“To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate certain tax expenditures”) currently in the House Ways and Means Committee contains language (Sec. 402) that would entirely remove the FEIE which allows Americans working abroad to exclude part of their foreign earned income from their US taxable income. Ironically, the bill does not touch the foreign housing exclusion which allows Americans the possibility of excluding some foreign housing expenses from their US taxable income.
Actually, this particular paragraph in H.R.2495 could hardly be expected to increase tax revenue by the promised amount of 5.4 billion dollars as US taxpayers living abroad would start using various tax credits such as foreign taxes paid in an effort to reduce their US tax bill. Filing US tax forms will become even more complicated for Americans abroad and tax revenue will not increase.
If anyone is from Massachusetts, please write to Tierney immediately and tell him this is crazy. His bill would eliminate the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion for Americans living overseas and would not bring in very much extra tax money. We DO pay taxes overseas. And the US is the only country in the world that taxes its citizens even if they live in another country and pay taxes to that country. Please write to Tierney and the bill’s cosponsors (Steve Cohen [D-TN9], Keith Ellison [D-MN5], Raul Grijalva [D-AZ7], Jesse Jackson [D-IL2], Betty McCollum [D-MN4]) to tell them to remove this paragraph from the bill.
Last Updated ( dimanche, 19 février 2012 )
Nobledreamer: Obama is not a “Constitutional lawyer”, nor is he a “professor of Constitutional law”, another sobriquet the sycophantic media laid on him. He was a part-time lecturer
covering one-third of a class in law school on the Constitution, and his lectures covered modern laws on some of the statutes, certainly not anything on its philosophical underpinnings or the discussions leading to its final form. He doesn’t even believe that his health care legislation should be reviewed by SCOTUS, and his objections to it, in addition to many of his actions over the past three years, show a surprising ignorance about separation of powers. I’d like to think he’s at least read the Constitutuion. But then again you’d think he’d read his own campaign promises!?
@markpine tree “This is the Obama I voted for.”
i think a overwhelming majority of expats and immigrants voted for Obama.
I couldnt but help recall this story from Hindu mythology.
“Bhasmasur was a devotee of the god Shiva who performed great penance to obtain a boon from the deity. Shiva became pleased and asked him to ask for a boon. Bhasmasur asked that he be granted the power that anyone whose head he touched with his hand should burn up and immediately turn into ashes (bhasma). Shiva granted this request, but Bhasmasura thereupon attempted to touch the head of Siva with his hand. Shiva fled, and was chased by Bhasmasur. ” So goes the story