Liberty and justice for all United States persons abroad

The Isaac Brock Society

Posted on by Posted in Issues regarding US persons abroad 82 Comments

Cross-posted from RenounceUScitizenship.

This is a response to the  email from Professor Green. Note to members of the Isaac Brock Society: This post is in part, an attempt to consolidate a number of the comments to Professor Green’s email.

Dear Professor Green:

U.S. citizens abroad – Democrats, Republicans and Independents – thank you for the “FBAR/FATCA Task Force” and we note with gratitude that:

Your FBAR/FATCA Task Force has been working steadily to seek relief for overseas Americans facing onerous tax reporting burdens.

Furthermore, your six proposals would be welcomed by U.S. citizens abroad – to be specific:

  • 1. Define a foreign or offshore account as an account in a country other than one’s country of residence or the US, thereby recognizing the legitimate need for local banking services;
  • 2. Raise the FATCA reporting threshold to $1 million to put the focus on taxpayers with wealth sizeable enough to justify the costly and complex investment structures normally used to conceal assessable earnings;
  • 3. Index the reporting threshold to inflation so that it goes up every year just as the Section 911 income exclusion does;
  • 4. Add a provision that excuses anyone who does not owe taxes (because of the Section 911 exclusion or any other exemption or a tax treaty) from the obligation to file form 8938, regardless of the threshold reporting;
  • 5. Merge the FBAR reporting requirement with the developing FATCA legislation to eliminate duplication in filings; and
  • 6. Offer amnesty to overseas Americans who are delinquent taxpayers, inviting them to pay what they may owe and restore their status as tax-compliant citizens. (See our opening remarks for our success in this area.)

That said, your proposals are merely an attempt to improve the conditions of the prison of citizenship-based taxation.  You are essentially just accepting the ideas of citizenship-based taxation, FATCA, FBAR and the rest. Gotta be in prison anyway. Why not put the effort into getting along better with the guards!

I once heard the following story:

During the time period that Obama was looking for the “First Dog”, he was out jogging. He met a man with a litter of beautiful puppies. He asked the man the following question:

What kind of puppies are these? The man answered, they are democrats Mr. President.

A week later, Obama brought his wife back to look at the puppies.

Naturally she asked: what kind of puppies are these? The man answered, they are Republicans.

Obama said what? Last week you told me these puppies were Democrats.

The man answered. Well, I was telling you the truth.

Last week they were Democrats. But, this week their eyes have opened and they are Republicans.

Professor Green: I think you need to open your eyes too.

My read of your bulletin is that you are making two broad points:

1. The Obama Democrats  really are friends of U.S. citizens abroad. Here are your reasons:

Compliance: “The Internal Revenue Service has made a significant concession to overseas voters who present little or no risk to tax avoidance.”

Professor Green: It’s clear you haven’t read the “concessions”. What the IRS is saying is that for those who have not filed tax returns, and are a “low compliance risk“, people will not face penalties. Furthermore, if you keep your eyes open as you read, you will see that owing less than $1500 tax is NOT a guarantee that one is “low compliance risk”. In addition, it is impossible that this could affect more than a small percentage of  taxpayers. Let’s not forget the reign of terror coming from the Obama administration. Hundreds of innocent people terrorized into entering OVDI. Remember “The silence was deafening“. Remember Ambassador Jacobson’s statement: “we are not unreasonable …” (while 70 year old grandmothers were terrorized into OVDI). Remember the IRS letting the 2011 tax season pass without following up on their January 9, 2012 promise of procedures to come into compliance.  The effect of not giving people timely directives for how to come into compliance is that they remain out of compliance. (Of course this does allow the IRS to levy more penalties.) Remember the failure to respond to the TAD from Nina Olsen with the respect to the infamous Q. 35 “bait and switch” in the 2009 OVDP? And what about the treatment of those overseas Americans who didn’t even know they were Americans. The IRS is graciously telling them that they must pay 5% of their assets to the IRS. This latest message from the IRS seems to me to be an attempt to get more people into the system. The problem is of course, as all  long-term tax filers will know, is that (assuming no filing of FBAR), they are at great risk of penalties because they are in the system.

I could go on, but I won’t. So, Professor Green, it doesn’t look like there any significant concessions to me.

FATCA: “The good news is that the threshold for reporting under the FATCA regime (Form 8938) has been raised from $50,000 to $200,000 for individual-filing Americans living abroad (to $400,000 for Americans living abroad filing jointly).”

Professor Green: To say this is good news is to say only that the impact could be worse or that a smaller number of people will be affected by FATCA.  You assume that FATCA is inherently good. But, that only its application to U.S. citizens abroad is bad. This is ridiculous. FATCA is an an attack on the sovereignty and freedom of all nations and all free people. I will say it another way: FATCA is inherently bad. FATCA is he beginning of the end of freedom and democracy the world over. People the world over,  need to oppose FATCA, and not just how it applies to certain U.S. citizens abroad. Believe me, sooner or later it will apply to all. The time to take a stand is now. Somehow, the following poem by Martin Niemoeller comes to mind:

First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

You should be opposing FATCA and not just the application of FATCA to certain groups!

But, you do make the point that:

The Government should be attacking tax cheats: You proudly state that:

In our discussions with political and bureaucratic officials we go to great lengths to express our support for the Government’s crack down on money launderers and tax cheats before explaining the adverse impacts and outlining our recommendations for making FATCA less harmful to overseas Americans.

Professor Green: The Obama administration is defining U.S. citizens abroad as tax cheats. So, what you are really saying is: We express support for the IRS attacking U.S. citizens abroad, it’s just that it is harmful to U.S. citizens abroad to be attacked by the IRS.

Professor Green: U.S. citizens abroad are tax cheats only because the U.S. continues to terrorize its citizens with citizenship-based taxation (just like Eritrea). Citizenship-based taxation may be a violation of international law. There are some who believe that citizenship-based taxation is a crime against humanity.  By using citizenship-based taxation, the U.S. has created a class of criminals that doesn’t exist in any other place except Eritrea. So, how about this for a novel idea:

Get rid of citizenship-based taxation. Lower the number of tax cheats. Lower crime.

Some comments  on these points from readers from your email:

2. Americans abroad should get out and vote for Obama:

But, as we move forward toward November 6, please bear in mind that, as troubling as our tax issues are now, conditions would be much worse (taxes and way beyond) with a Romney presidency, a tea party House and a Senate without a filibuster-proof majority. Imagine a right wing activist Supreme Court for thirty years (despite the welcome news about the President’s historic health care initiative)!

Some comments on this point:

Professor Green: What is your objective here? Is it to promote the Obama administration or is to help U.S. citizens abroad? Unfortunately there is NO POSSIBILITY OF DOING BOTH. The Obama administration has  declared war on U.S. citizens abroad.  It has forever changed their lives as they knew them. Remember:

It’s not what you take from somebody, it’s what you leave them with!

Let’s explore the consequences of both promoting Obama and of  supporting U.S. citizens abroad.

1. If you are trying to support U.S. citizens abroad, then you should be telling the Obama administration that if they don’t change their policies NOW that you will be encouraging your group – Democrats Abroad to vote for Romney. The only thing the Obama administration will understand is a loss of votes. With respect, the notion that we should trust these people to make changes after the election, ranks as one of the stupidest things I have ever heard! They have had a long time to change their policies toward U.S. citizens abroad. Instead, it is getting worse and worse. By suggesting that people should vote for Obama, Professor Green you are encouraging and supporting the same policies that you claim to protest.

Since, you are busy urging  that people vote for Obama, it is clear that you do NOT represent the interests of U.S. citizens abroad. Comment after comment has demonstrated how hostile the Obama administration has been to U.S. citizens abroad. Let me put it another way:

The Obama administration has forever changed the lives of U.S. citizens abroad! The IRS and Obama administration have stolen the lives of hard working Americans. I venture to say that many U.S. citizens abroad are not even the same people they were a year ago.

2. If you are trying to support Obama, I suggest that give us a reason to support Obama that is related to  Obama. You are doing what all Democrats do – “Romney would be worse”. As a professor, grading a paper, you would expect somebody to explain their position. So, far I would give you a very low grade. I ask you to explain your position. In fact I ask you to explain two specific things:

First: Exactly how or why would Romney be worse?

Second, how about offering a reason to vote for Obama that has something to do with Obama?  I know it’s hard. But, surely you can come up with some reason. Here is another thought that captures this sentiment:

Professor Green, I request that you provide answers to these two questions.

(Interestingly, a number of prominent democrats,including President Clinton believe that Romney  is qualified to be president.)

Why no U.S. citizen “with his eyes open” should vote for Barack Obama

Obama is in charge of the executive branch of the U.S. government. He is in charge of First Tax Cheat Geithner, who is in charge of Shulman and the IRS. This attack on U.S. citizens abroad is NOT because of citizenship-based taxation (which is the result of an Act of Congress). It IS the result of the manner in which existing laws have been administered. The Obama administration is responsible for the administration of these laws and has used these laws to INTENTIONALLY attack U.S. citizens abroad.

U.S. citizens abroad should organize themselves one community at time to vote against Barack Obama.

In closing

I hate to sound like George Bush (You are either with the terrorists or you are with us). But, the reality is that the Obama administration has declared war (in a metaphorical sense) on U.S. citizens abroad. The only way to win this war is to defeat (in actuality) Barack Obama. Therefore, if  you care about U.S. citizens abroad, I suggest that you encourage your members to  vote for Romney. Romney has NOT declared war on U.S. citizens abroad.

On the other hand, if you and Democrats Abroad are just here to do Obama’s work in Canada (I thought this was Ambassador Jacobson’s job), then continue singing the “Let’s vote for Obama song”.

You need to decide what it is that you are trying to do. Are you a man of principle or are you a man of the Democratic Party?

Winston Churchill once said:

“Some people change their party for the sake of principle, and some people change their principles for the sake of party.”

_____________________________________________________________________

P.S. As an aside, I note with amusement your comment that:

Many of us living outside of the U.S. will likely need to continue to seek professional help for filing the various tax forms required of us. We have heard some pretty horrendous stories about Americans being fleeced by unscrupulous tax preparers, so we urge that you use caution in finding professional financial help.

Professor Green: The truth is that the accounting and legal costs of coming into U.S. tax compliance are so high that few people can afford to pay them. Some cannot pay them at all. Some are dipping into their retirement funds to come into compliance, but cannot pay them on an ongoing basis. People are forced to renounce U.S. citizenship for this reason alone. Renunciations of U.S. citizenship are soaring under Obama.

Some Thoughts On the Costs of  “Cross-Border Professionals“:

Coming into compliance costs: Talk to anybody who has attempted this. The principle is this: the more one has tried to save for retirement the more expensive the costs of coming into compliance. For most people the costs will be in the mid five figure range (and some in the six figure range). You might talk to some of the people in OVDI about this!

Compliance on a going forward basis: It’s a tax on life. Canadians who are not U.S. citizens can use their money to invest, go on vacations, join fitness clubs, etc. U.S. citizens have to use that money for accountants. Think I am kidding? I explored this in an earlier post explaining why U.S. citizenship has been priced out of the market.

P.P.S.

Of course all of these problems could be solved if the U.S. would:

Stop citizenship-based taxation and repeal FATCA.

82 thoughts on “The best thing Joe Green and Democrats Abroad could do is encourage all Democrats to vote for Romney”

  1. Very well said.  I was also of the opinion that Joe Green’s endorsement of Obama because Romney would be worse for Expats was just simply dumb, and certainly not worthy of an academic.

  2. @Petros

    Yes read your comments. One or two are captured in the included tweets.

  3. @Joe Green:  “How’s that hopey changey thing working for you?”  (Sarah Palin).

    I cringe at the fact I’m quoting Sarah Palin, but for most people who are or were US citizens, the answer is terrible.

    I hope you will reply to the very real concerns and anger expressed here, but I’m not expecting much more from you than we’ve seen from the White House or Congress.

    Fortunately, Joe, I can’t vote for anyone in U.S. because I relinquished my citizenship when I became a Canadian in 1973.  However, if I had followed your advice in 2004 (“Get with the program.  Pennsylvania is a swing state.”), I would be caught up in the same nightmare that Calgary411 and others here are in.

  4. I appreciate what groups like the ACA and AARO, have done to add pressure on Obama and the Democrats, and the IRS to ameliorate the confiscatory and draconian burden we are experiencing. I appreciate any work that the DPCA FBAR/FATCA Task Force has contributed, but I would assume that their efforts are necessarily hampered by their core purpose. It was my impression a few months ago that the talks with the IRS weren’t getting much traction. I see nothing from Obama and the Democratic party that would show me that they care at all about the wellbeing of those abroad – even that of fellow Democrats. To be clear, I don’t absolve Republicans either – and am aware of their part in setting the stage for the current jihad against those abroad – but currently, the most egregious efforts are coming from, and supported overwhelmingly by Democrats. With few signal exceptions like Carolyn Maloney.

    In conversation with a few local Democrats abroad about the current IRS persecution of duals and those living outside the US; one was in a deep depression – close to suicidal – a minnow – (low to middle income, no US tax owing, but with registered savings) – in deep despair, who had thought the only option to become compliant was to enter OVDI. Another was a limited income senior who couldn’t afford professional help – and couldn’t figure out how to comply and prove ‘reasonable cause’ on his own. I do not have the impression that the recent argument represented in the statement by Joe Green and the Democrats Abroad DPCA FBAR/FATCA Task Force was at all likely to offset the depths of the horrific shock and fear they were experiencing – it is not at all probable that they would swallow that level of fear and anger and depression at their persecution by the US, and ‘get out the vote’ for Obama.

    The argument that 30 years of Supreme Court rulings were more important than the significant losses they and their families were facing – either from the IRS, or from professional fees, was farcical in the face of their own potential personal and family obliteration. They had had no idea about FBARs, FATCA, etc. and had thought that their taxes paid in full to Canada were sufficient – the usual situation.

    I really doubt that historic party affiliation or sympathy is going to induce those ‘abroad’ who’ve experienced this degree of shock and horror to bring themselves to vote for the Democrats – without some real public acknowledgement and amelioration of the situation by the domestic party and Obama himself, of the effects of their deliberate and systematic actions on those outside the US. There has to be a reason that Americans abroad were left out of the 2012 Obama platform after being highlighted in the 2008 one as a ‘group of special concern’, and now they’re not mentioned at all – except by implication when speaking of those with ‘offshore’ banking.

    We’ll see what ‘low compliance risk’ means – well before November; it may be that only ‘unicorns’ (imaginary creatures that fit IRS guidelines) will be voting for Obama from those ‘abroad’ – including registered Democrats.

  5. *An absolutely brilliant analysis. Especially my attention is drawn to this statement:

    “That said, your proposals are merely an attempt to improve the conditions of the prison of citizenship-based taxation. You are essentially just accepting the ideas of citizenship-based taxation, FATCA, FBAR and the rest. Gotta be in prison anyway. Why not put the effort into getting along better with the guards!“

  6. What I find amusing is watching the left twist themselves into pretzel positions trying to stay politically correct while dealing with the results of their warped and unrealistic view of reality.

    Take this National Post Article: How Canada broke up with the U.S.

    Not only does it not even mention the accidental American issue, here is what it has to say about Canadian stupidity:

    how is it that Obama remains so popular on this side of the border? They
    note polls showing he retains an approval rating in excess of 60% among
    Canadians.

    Thats right Canucks, the vast majority of you begged for it and you got a full dose of Obama’s progressivism.  And when you guys are confronted with the leftists from south of the border presenting you with your “fair” share of the “bill” all we hear is a bunch of wingeing.  You shout “oh, I am a minnow, not a whale” and act like that somehow excuses your past sins of tax “cheating”.  You act like someone who cheated on 10% of $4M in taxes is far more guilty and should serve 10 times as long as someone who cheated on 100% of $4K.  Progressives always want it both ways, they want lower taxes and lower sentences for themselves and higher taxes and longer sentences for anybody who is doing better than themselves.  Well look where your “fairness” is getting you now:  your fellow progressive Canadians have thrown you to the wolves.  And yet so many of you still believe in Obama and progressivism.  Selberschuld.

  7. @ConfederateH  If Obama is popular in Canada we have the legacy media to thank for it.  So far, our concerns as expats have been largely ignored except from the perspective of carrying water for the IRS.  I told Barrie McKenna that he was getting the narrative wrong.  But I guess from the stand point of journalistic neutrality, he continues to tread softly on the US.  It is time for the Canadian press to take the gloves off (I think that’s a  hockey metaphor).

  8. And what bull—- is this claim: “I believe the relationship between the United States and Canada has never been stronger,” ” by Ambassador Jacobson (of sit tight Canadian grandmas fame) http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/05/u-s-canada-relationship-never-been-stronger-american-ambassador-says-despite-paper-saying-otherwise/ 

    The million or more duals here, those who either know about FATCA and the IRS jihad against US deemed taxable ‘persons’ and duals in Canada and elsewhere, or who will find out shortly – to their horror, that their legal, post-Canadian-tax family assets are at significant risk of confiscation and penalty, are going to have a huge negative incentive to support any politicians who seek to make that ‘relationship’ any cozier.

  9. @ConfederateH;

     re; “Progressives always want it both ways, they want lower taxes and lower
    sentences for themselves and higher taxes and longer sentences for
    anybody who is doing better than themselves    .”

    Actually, I don’t mind paying taxes in full, to support the services and ideals I believe in – in Canada, where I live, earn and work. I object to being owned as lifelong tax-chattel or indentured servant to an extra-territorial US government that provides me with absolutely zero benefit, while threatening to confiscate or obliterate my legal post-tax Canadian savings, and threatening me with worse.

    I object to the US taxing those with no connection to the US – other than inherited by birth. I object to Canadian and other children born in other non-US countries being subjected without recourse to the extraterritorial laws and taxation of what is to them a ‘foreign’ country – the US.

    I object to the hypocrisy of the US absolving Geithner as an ‘innocent’ – who significantly neglected his US taxes in the tens of thousands, and rewarded him publicly by elevating him to high office in the Treasury – while treating anyone living ‘abroad’ with zero or de minimus US tax owed as criminals.

  10. *This applies to me: ” I venture to say that many U.S. citizens abroad are not even the same people they were a year ago.” My life is now a nightmare and I still don´t know what I can/should do to regain some peace and a full night´s sleep. It started in 2009 when, by chance I learned abour FBARs and from that time on it has become more and more disturbed affecting me, my family and my work.

  11. Well, I think that Mr. Obama and his Congress members deserve every word of above. 
    I would like to thank the Democrats Abroad for doing something about this and for being active in the discussion directly in Washington.  I really hope they keep up their efforts to fight FATCA, even if they are fighting with their own people and also with backlash from here.  The feedback here is very much against their party members.  They need to fight their own party to acquire some justice. 
    I wish them all the luck in their fight which is generally in the same direction.  I believe it was Romney who said that we need everyone in order to reach 51%—-and the same is for FATCA.

  12. The Republicans (party of Chuck Grassley) have been just as bad as the Democrats on our issues, so I don’t see any reason to vote for Romney.

    Democrats Abroad is, formally, a state-level delegation within the Democratic Party.  So there is no reason DA should not be able to fight within the party to have our views represented in the election.  Theoretically, we should have a seat at the table, at least within the party, even if not within the actual US electorate.

    Access to financial services within our local communities, especially for those of us who are not the super-rich, is such a basic issue of justice and fairness that I do not see how it can not be accepted as a Democratic Party platform.

  13. @renounce….

    I think you better email this to Joe Greene, as he probably is not actively looking for this feedback.  I almost feel sorry for him, in a way, trying to defend what has happened under Obama.  That is a hard task… He would be in denial, or try to find justifications for the unjustifiable.  Natural reaction. Hard to acknowledge the stupidity of your side of the partisan divide. You have too much emotional energy invested in them to be objective in your assessment. 

    However, I do wonder how much of these past 3 years was just Bush appointee Shulman out on his own, trying to curry favor in the political realm. He probably wasn’t looking deeply into what his OVDP camel team was creating. I can see them sitting around the conference table hi-fiving each other as a Whale was hauled in, and nary a mention of the 100 minnows that came with it.  Willful blindness is their term for their own failure to observe their catch, focused as they were on the harpoons being shot off the bow.  No need to look into the ships hold to see what was actually there.  

    The CI guys I talked to over the 4th, thought Shulman was a total political animal and had no use for him, so there you go…  He has in fact been hiding and/or failing to acknowledge the unintended consequences of his efforts.  I can see why he is getting out of dodge!  He probably would not survive under an Romney administration even though he comes from the same party. 

  14. ConfederateH –

    You inspire sometimes. I’m pretty sure the backstory stuff that follows here had washed into the flow before you appeared on the scene. Anyway, a while back, I did a stiff comment on the foolish hopes of residents of Canada [2012/05/30 at 8:27 pm]. A posting on Anti-Americanism in Canada followed later.

    When you get right down to it, there is not a lot of difference between what Canadian Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty did in August 2011 and what the IRS did in December 2011. Take a hard look at policy already on the books, dress it up, make it look like news. Take credit for the spin. Wow!

    Statism pervades Canada, and floats right along on the brainless colonial pillaging of massive natural resources. Grab as much as possible, right now – soils fertilized to death, fish stocks depleted, mine tailings routinely allowed to leach their poisons, forest death [pine beetle, anyone?], tar sands, fracking, peddling uranium, still peddling asbstos offshore, ad nauseam. Typically nothing very creative! The hell with future generations and the hinterlands.

    Skim off a bit to live well today, hand all the rest over to the rogues — exploitative individuals and family dynasties [how about those scarcely-mentioned-at-Brock Canadian wealth expatriations of the Irvings and the Bronfmans?], comprador “elected” officials, plus whatever external governments need to be toadied to at the moment. So far, enough crumbs left over to pacify the masses, to feed the illusion that somehow their accident of location makes them special and good. That I’m-all-right-Jack pride in peace–order–goodgovernment ultimately rests on a foundation of genocide and theft and unsustainability. Right back to the Beothuk!

    One of the reasons I delight in Brock is experiencing the prise de conscience of persons who are having their first serious personal encounters with just-because-we-can-and-you-do-not-matter oppression. Little old me? How can this be? But surely this other “good” government has to look out for me?

    Black humor is a survival skill. Sauve qui peut!

  15. Excellent post.  You’ve done it again, renounce.  

    Thanks for putting it all together in words many of us cannot express.  My regards to all of you who do such fine analysis and writing.

  16. @usxcanada

     

    I am not nearly as pessimistic as you are but I definitely think there are real challenges for all the parties involved. Many NDP MPs have been strongly opposed to FATCA from the beginning but there is always going to be a certain degree of sympathy to Obama and his efforts to curb “tax evasion.” The Conservatives have more ability with their base to be hostile to the Obama Administration but there is also a certain degree of Pro-Americanism among the party faithful. The Liberals always think of themselves as the “Canada Party” but there is a long history of cooperation between Liberal Prime Ministers and Democratic Presidents such as Mackenzie King and FDR, Chretien and Clinton, and to a lesser extent Carter and Trudeau. The Liberals most recent permanent leader was also a big time intellectual who was in real tight with much of the American political establishment.  Bay Street Bankers are quite happy not suffering the same political fate as the brethren on Wall Street and the City of London but they also realize there main Canadian retail banking business has little growth left in it(with many of the larger credit unions such as VanCity, Servus, Alterna etc nipping at their heels) and that as much as they don’t like FATCA if FATCA were to fail the alternative might be far worse from their prospective i.e. Capital Controls between the US and Canada.

    All in all for whatever its worth the only country who has been as vocally critical of FATCA as Canada is Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

  17. @usxcanada

    In my opinion the current generations of Bronfmans are total losers that blew most of their fortune in the entertainment business which they knew nothing about to placate spoiled child Edgar Bronfman Jr. Serves them right. They would have been far richer right now if they stuck to their original Canadian beverage business.

    The Irving’s are savvy businesspeople despite the fact they treat New Brunswick as a company plantation. The Irvings’s realized that New Englanders are the biggest NIMBY’s in the world and would never allow any oil refineries to be built locally to fuel their BMW’s and Volvo’s. Easy solution build a big refinery up the coast in Saint John and ship all the gasoline down to Boston Harbor and essentially take over the New England transportation fuel market and get filthy rich in the process.

  19. Mr. Green: I was life long democrat and actively participated in campaign for Obama. But this time I am voting for Republicans. I still don’t like Republicans, but my dislike for Obama is more than my dislike for Republicans. This is how I am expressing my disgust towards this administration that deliberately used FBAR law to treat legitimate accounts of expats no differently than accounts of terrorists, money launderers and tax-cheats living in the USA and hide money in tax-heavens.

    I am in the process of relinquishing my US citizenship and voting against Obama is last thing I do as a US citizen. I hope more expats learn this unfair law that treats innocent-trespassers (who think that is public place but accidentally wondered in to a unfenced private lawn) and who deliberately broke and entered into private house to commit armed robbery. I can’t forgive this administration for ignoring many warning and deliberately continue to enforce the FBAR law against innocent-trespassers.

    Mr. Badger properly said: We’ll see what ‘low compliance risk’ means – well before November; it may be that only ‘unicorns’ (imaginary creatures that fit IRS guidelines) will be voting for Obama from those ‘abroad’ – including registered Democrats.

    I hope, more democrats abroad vote against this administrations to sand a strong message that the criminal actions like infamous ‘bait-and-switch’ and 5% penalty on accidental citizens (who doesn’t even know that they are US citizens), while criminals can get away with 3% penalty on his wealth. For example, a wealthy billionaire who has 80% of his wealth in the USA just need to pay 20% on his 20% illegally saved wealth in tax heavens to evade taxes. He can become compliant by spending 0.01% on legal fees, while poor experts need to spend 5% or more for legal fees to become compliant (if he is lucky enough to find a competent and honest lawyer to represent home).

    I never though possible that any US administration could turn generally patriotic law abiding Americans abroad in to resentful American bashers. I believed that, only dictators or communist regimes can do that. Things like patriotism, love, distrust and resentment are feelings, which no one can dictate to himself. When one losses trust and love for his country, he must relinquish his citizenship. I am still a democrat because I like the underlying ideology of Democratic Party more than ideology of Republican Party.

    But I hatred towards this administration is growing day by day as they deliberately ignore the suffering of expats and try to extract money using obscure unfair FBAR law retroactively. I am sure silent majority of democrats abroad watching 

    Prof. Green salient majority of democrats abroad watching the implementation of various vague concepts like ‘low compliance risk’ means, and no one can forget the ‘bait-and-switch’. Please start spin-doctoring the unfair actions, which only increases distrust and resentment among salient majority of democrats abroad. We need actions.

  20. @ConfederateH, I’m politically left and I respect Obama but I didn’t vote for him in 2008 and I currently have no motive to vote for him in 2012.  The problem is that two-party systems are incapable of servicing the interests of the entire population.  Being a far-left individual who favors small government and low taxes, it is very difficult or even impossible for the demorepublican monarchy to win my vote.  I want a lesbian Asian (preferably from Iran) female feminist anarchist as president who will slash the military, reduce spending on the medical mafia, get religion out of politics, cut all foreign spending and enact the FairTax. With 15+ trillion debt, one simply has to accept that the US government is incompetent.

    @RenounceUScitizenship, Professor Green’s six proposals sound logical and more reasonable.  It is actually hard to understand that it is not the US government who is explaining to Professor Green why it created FBAR/FATCA with these 6 rules.  Yet, the problem that I have with these 6 proposals, is that they would make it more difficult for the government to justify a switch to residency-based taxation.  The current system is so extreme that nobody with a sane mind can support the present system.

  21. Democrats abroad censored my comment from Facebook, so I’ll post it here.  This was posted at http://www.facebook.com/DemsAbroad under “How do you feel about this? Do you have an offshore bank account?”

    @Kate Peterson, your bring up a strong point.  Americans in America think only about Americans in America, not about Americans abroad.  As such, new laws apply to Americans in America, not to Americans abroad.  This means that the probability is good that new laws will have a negative impact on Americans abroad, since Americans abroad were not taken into consideration.  Americans in America do not think about the consequences their actions will have upon us, because, as you pointed out, they do not think about us.  We don’t exist, as far as they are concerned (except for tax purposes).  Thus, they won’t even care if we are harmed as a result of their laws.  So, new laws on offshore banking will most likely have a negative impact on Americans abroad.  This can be seen in every single law which impacts Americans abroad.  To vote, talk to a representative, get a loan, open a bank account, get an ID card, pay taxes, get a refund, etc., Americans abroad must live in America (have a US address).  The US tax code is a residency-based system (for Americans in America) which punishes Americans living abroad since we are not taken into consideration, as you pointed out.  You mentioned voting.  Not all Americans abroad may be able to vote since they don’t live in America.  When I registered to vote, I had to complain and argue until they overrode the system and manually enter in my address so that they could allow me to vote.  Afterwards, they informed me that I couldn’t vote locally and only in national elections.  Yet, when voting in national elections, the votes of Americans abroad are diluted among 50 states, making it completely impossible for us to have a voice in America.  So, as you pointed out, Americans in America don’t think about Americans abroad.  We have no representation, no say, no vote and no influence except the good intentions and efforts of a few organizations such as Democrats Abroad, Republicans Abroad, ACA, AARO and FAWCO.  Our votes abroad should send Democrats Abroad to the white house, not Obama.

    This remark was censored? What for? Shame on Democrats Abroad.

  22. @swisspinoy,

    Looks like they deleted the entire question and all responses, not just yours.  Guess it wasn’t generating many thumbs-up.

    Which tells me that Democrats Abroad are simply acting as campaigners for the party, and are not actually trying to ascertain and represent the views of real, live democrats abroad.  Well, I’m not going to sit in the back of your bus, folks, nor allow myself to be thrown under it.  This is one Democrat Abroad who will be sitting this election out.

  23. @swisspinoy

    nice effort–taking on the professionals like that.  Those slick photos and comments are not spontaneous posts from volunteers working in their spare time. Social media choreographers would never let their work be tarnished.
      The happy expatriates in the photograph are an example of all the millions of expats who have yet to learn the seriousness of FATCA in their lives.

  25. @Badger:

    “Actually, I don’t mind paying taxes in full, to support the services and ideals I believe in – in Canada, where I live, earn and work.”

    But what if some oil-rig worker working tons of overtime and spending months at a time away from his family in the north of Alberta doesn’t want to pay for free healthcare for some recent and jobless middle eastern immigrant in Toronto?  Suppose he wanted to save his money to buy a house or start a business.  You would use the same power of the gun that you so dislike in the US to steal massive amounts of that oil-workers hard earned pay.  Have you ever made good money Badger?  In the dotcom boom I was contracting and making very good money.  I was working 3 IT contracts simultaneously.  But I simply can’t do that anymore, like many oil riggers I lost my edge as I got older.  During those golden years multiple governments robbed me blind so they could piss away the money they stole from me while they took on massive debts in my name.

    Your “Services you believe in” is nothing but a naive belief that once you unleash your government on the rest of us that you will still be able to keep it restrained when FACTA and FBAR are direct proof that you can’t.  Now you are experiencing the downside of government for the first real time, well many of us have been getting stomped on by this same big government you love for decades.  And this is really what Obama was about, he represented the vain hope that someone could somehow solve the liberal conundrum:  how can you be “liberal” (which means for freedom) when you have empowered government to take everything away from people you don’t approve of.  As they always said:  be careful what you wish for.

    @usxcanada:

    I don’t really agree with this statement, but I live in Switzerland where the government has given plants rights to lawyers and legal recourse: 

    “brainless colonial pillaging of massive natural resources. Grab as much as possible, right now – soils fertilized to death, fish stocks depleted, mine tailings routinely allowed to leach their poisons, forest death [pine beetle, anyone?], tar sands, fracking, peddling uranium, still peddling asbstos offshore, ad nauseam. Typically nothing very creative! The hell with future generations and the hinterlands.”

    @swisspinoy:

    “Being a far-left individual who favors small government and low taxes”

    That statement makes little or no sense at all, depending on your definition of “left”.  And saying that you want a feminist Iranian lesbian president is even more schizophrenic.    In your case I guess that means you think stealing from people is okay as long as the government does it in the name of environmentalism or lesbian and womens rights.  Like Sandra Fluke’s new found “womens productive rights” (which means the “right” to unlimited birth control).  You want the government to guarantee equality but only on your terms.  Well now the government has decided that its your turn to pay for someone else’s “equality” and benefits and you don’t like it.  Tough Luck.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: