If this has already been posted, sorry for the duplication. This whole issue is starting to get traction. More than 200 comments so far. Looks like a good article.
US citizenship = a tax on life online.wsj.com/article/SB1000… Choice for #americansabroad: 1. US citizenship 2: A “high tax” life without #FBAR #FATCA
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) May 20, 2012
BTW… Laura Saunders has been on my email list for a long time. Here is her email address if anyone wants to write her personally and thank her for bringing the subject to the MSM attention:
laura.saunders@wsj.com
Sent to Laura Sanders
“The overwhelming majority of people who make it rich in America, whether they’ve been here 12 generations or they’re immigrants, stay here, and they live up to their responsibilities,” Schumer told Bloomberg Television on Thursday. “About 10,000 people in the last 10 years have renounced their citizenship. Not a single one has been penalized.”
Article 15. (signed and ratified by the USA)
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a15
“Not a single one has been penalized.” Exactly, because they have done nothing wrong. Renouncing citizenship is not a crime, it’s like a termination of a contract according to the rules. What on Earth is Chuck Schumer thinking when he says such things?
It really is rather frightening…
Note that Schumer proposes to punish people for giving up citizenship, not prevent them from doing so. That is an important difference, up front at least.
In the end, I believe, Congress will close the vise so hard on US citizens that giving up nationality will become painful to the point of not being desirable. However they can still point to article 15 and claim they are not preventing anyone from doing so.
@Wellington, I understand your logic, but the name of Schumer’s bill is “Expatriation Prevention (…) Act”. He really wants to prevent people from renouncing US citizenship by punishing them if they do so, as if it were a crime. Taxes are a pretext.
@Wellington “Note that Schumer proposes to punish people for giving up citizenship, not prevent them from doing so. That is an important difference, up front at least.”
Sorry. Not seeing it. The fine for running a red light exists to dissuade people from running red lights. The Schumer “fine” for renouncing exists to dissuade people from renouncing.
I’m with you on the second paragraph, though. The US is moving inexorably towards a position where if you can get out with the shirt on your back, they’ll see that as enough to satisfy the UDHR. And common decency be damned. HEART and FATCA began the process. The Ex-PATRIOT is merely the next step. (And goodness, how I hate these sophomoric names congress tortures the English language to produce.)
They can call laws what they want, but this one does not make it illegal to renounce. A better title would be, “Expatriation Deterrence Act.” The US has not crossed the line yet to make it illegal to renounce (I suspect they never will, otherwise this would be a true human rights violation).
In parallel, Congress constantly increases the pain and costs for expatriating corporations but legally they still can move overseas. Many choose not to, though, because the regulations make it tough for them to survive as a going concern, should they do so.
@Watcher
Yes the names are indeed creative (and sophomoric).
Please point me to the section of the Ex-Patriot Act stating it is illegal to renounce (which would go against Article 15 cited above).
My only point is that, over time, Congress will simply increase the pain to the point where far fewer (or maybe no one) renounces. But this is not the same as promulgating a law making it illegal to renounce.
@Wellington: “Please point me to the section of the Ex-Patriot Act stating it is illegal to renounce (which would go against Article 15 cited above).”
Touché. (Actually, I haven’t looked, but I won’t doubt it’s absent!).
A philosophical question, I suppose, is when does a tax become a fine? Some taxes walk like a fine, and quack like a fine. I wonder how the outcomes would differ if Schumer really introduced a fine rather than a “tax” (aside from no longer being able to claim that the US is “free”). I can’t see a difference beyond semantics; maybe that’s just me. Tax law is congress’s Swiss Army knife.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/why-the-ex-patriot-act-is-a-creepy-law/257368/
@Watcher
Hey just pointing out the differences!
I’m not a lawyer but I have renounced so I’ve given all this a bit of thought. Good question on the semantics between “tax” and “fine.” I wish I knew.
I agree that these politicians really want to keep the revenue flowing and will use all weapons at their disposal to “dissuade” us from leaving. If it were up to Schumer, I am sure he would craft a law to make it illegal to do so; but he won’t go there because he’s shrewd about the blowback. Like any good politician though he knows where to probe against all the fine lines of decency, propriety, and legality. He’s using the Saverin Affair to coast on the “eat the rich” sentiment. I’m sure other politicians will jump on board.
@watcher, “names congress tortures the English language to produce”…too funny! Coming soon to American dictionaries: T’reason defined by “tax reason”.
She’s talking about this Expatriot-Act like it’s a done deal. Bottom line: US doesn’t want tax slaves leaving the plantation. FATCA confirms that because they could have made it flexible for long-term residents overseas but they didn’t. Shocker!
And behold, the “Saverin rule” creeps towards bipartisan support:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/20/boehner-may-support-dems-expat-tax/
“Boehner may support Dems’ ‘expat tax'”
Yet more proof that relying on either the dems or repubs to take on the cause is pure folly. Sheesh, what a bunch of losers. Mr Boehner, you may be as dimwitted as the rest of your ilk.
Wanting to be seen supporting a popular measure (49% oppose renouncing citizenship, according to Laura Saunder’s infographic) and wanting to get reelected are truly “bipartisan” desires.
This is only getting worse. I’m thinking about contacting Bill Alexander, he is no longer in Congress but still politically active. Would that be a good idea?
If anyone needs a little musical inspiration …
@em, That is the Perfect Song for IBS!
Wish I knew how to attach a photo but go here …
http://refreshingnews99.blogspot.in/2012/05/origin-of-skeleton-to-be-auctioned.html
You’ll see a photo of an accidental American about to be deported whose bones have been picked clean — my guess it was Schumer and Casey in cahoots with the IRS.
@Shadow Raider, Bill Alexander was involved in supporing legislation to replace Citizenship with residence-based taxation when he was still in Congress.
I was told by a person who used to be on is staff that his introduction and support for this legislation is what cost him his re-election. His opponent successfully used this against him by emphasizing that he was more interested in “Americian deserters” than he was in the issues that were important to his own constituents I think he is now an attorney based in Washington, DC.
@Em, guffaw. or LOL or ROFL. thanks for the laugh.
The morale of the story:
RENOUNCE or RELINQUISH now while you still can!
The next step may be to deny former citizens CLNs.
And why would they stop there?
Great advice, Patrick Henry.
Start doing some research on Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur of Ohio. She is going to have a problem soon when her constituents find out about her having a meeting with a prominent renounciated citizen in her office. Will post details tonight.