Deckard writes of a major irony in the position (or non-position) of Democrats Abroad on FATCA and related issues:
I believe that one of the ironic consequences of our situation is that Democrats Abroad, and others analogous to it, such as Republicans Abroad, shall soon be facing unprecedented existential crises. If FATCA continues to unfold as its architects wish it to then there may be no more than this current generation left to even attend DA meetings and events. Instead, they may begin to resemble lonely Legion halls with a dwindling membership of WWII vets.
Once FATCA begins to be fully implemented, younger Democrats Abroad will be faced with a stark choice: either shed themselves of their now-toxic U.S. citizenship which their parents so lovingly transmitted to them, with all the best intentions – or face a bleak future of financial ruin in their adopted countries because of a crippling inability to participate in the essential tax-deferral vehicles they need to build a secure retirement. Of course, the third choice would be to abandon their overseas homes completely, where they were very likely born, and run headlong into the full embrace of the Homeland, leaving their friends and family behind forever.
I attended the Inaugural Ball celebration at the local chapter of Democrats Abroad last night and I saw very few people under the age of 50 in attendance. If that is the current, baseline demographic for this organization then I would have to conclude that its days may very well be numbered.
I was struck last night at the passion with which one of the organizers spoke of the chapter’s me-too support of new gun-control legislation in the U.S. I could not help but marvel at the irony of an overseas American organization choosing to focus on an almost entirely domestic American issue at the expense of issues that will be of far more immediate and personal consequence to their own lives in the coming years. No one spoke of FATCA, and the destructive scourge of citizenship-based taxation, even though this issue should remain at the very top of DA’s agenda for years to come.
I know that Joe Green is DA’s Canadian point-man for the FATCA/FBAR task force, but it seems that he is the only one in the organization who’s showing any real interest in the topic. Everyone else is blithely enjoying their little get-togethers and making themselves feel good about supporting a few easy motherhood issues from afar, all the while ignoring the ugly, dangerous reality that lies right before their very eyes, on this side of the border. If Democrats Abroad remains blind to where its energies most urgently need to be directed, and if it cannot muster enough confidence to forthrightly speak truth to power, then I believe it is truly doomed and will soon be a footnote to history.
Deckard originally wrote his above observations, in reply a comment to Michael on another thread, which read:
I am a member of Democrats Abroad. I voted for Obama because I agree with him on more issues than I do with the Republicans. At the same time I disagree with FATCA and citizenship-based taxation and enjoy the IBS website. If IBS wants to be as effective as possible in reaching out on citizenship-based taxation — which, like government raids and government overreach, precedes Obama — I would urge you to be more politically inclusive.
Thanks to Michael for his comment as well as to Deckard for his lengthy reply to it. It’s an important matter worthy of focus and exchange of ideas and opinions.
A Cruel and Unusual RecordBy JIMMY CARTER
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/opinion/americas-shameful-human-rights-record.html?_r=0
*Badger, briefly ACA now has an office in Washigton and maintains close contact with Congresswoman Maloney. ACA was instrumental in persuading her to form the coalition which she now heads that takes an interest in Americans Abroad.
I remember the Carter iniative to include US citizens abroad in the US census. It failed because, unlike Swiss abroad who are treated with great respect and dignity by their homeland government and therefore keep their consulates informed (without a census) on who they are and where they live, Americans abroad are treated with such disdain by our own government with guillotine-like penalties lurking over their heads at every turn, that they prefer to remain incognito and only contact US consulates in case of extreme necessity. It is not by accident that some 50% of Switzerlans’s GDP is generated through exports whereas for the US it is about 8%.
You reap what you sow. Tragically few in Washington understand this or the vital part US citizens could be playing for positive results for the US. That’s the difference.
@Badger
http://americansabroad.org/issues/taxation/history-of-us-taxes-abroad/
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&tbo=d&site=&source=hp&q=President+Carter+U.S.+citizens+abroad&oq=President+Carter+U.S.+citizens+abroad&gs_l=hp.3…1263.7627.0.7806.37.27.0.4.4.0.341.2391.8j9j1j1.19.0.les%3B..0.0…1c.1.JKbonSiZCyA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&bvm=bv.41248874,d.aWc&fp=a49c341a107ee79e&biw=1025&bih=695
The words of Jimmy Carter in the NY Times Op Ed:
While the country has made mistakes in the past, the widespread abuse of human rights over the last decade has been a dramatic change from the past. With leadership from the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948 as “the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” This was a bold and clear commitment that power would no longer serve as a cover to oppress or injure people, and it established equal rights of all people to life, liberty, security of person, equal protection of the law and freedom from torture, arbitrary detention or forced exile.
The declaration has been invoked by human rights activists and the international community to replace most of the world’s dictatorships with democracies and to promote the rule of law in domestic and global affairs. It is disturbing that, instead of strengthening these principles, our government’s counterterrorism policies are now clearly violating at least 10 of the declaration’s 30 articles, including the prohibition against “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Sadly, Jimmy Carter is 88 years old. Better move quickly… 🙁
Yes and purposefully. I think this is a real opportunity and we need to do a lot of groundwork first.
@usxcanada
I too agree with you and was about to make the same change as Petros but he got there first – thanks Petros.
I also certainly hope we haven’t “shooed” Michael away since I believe this place thrives more with a diversity of opinions.
@swisspinoy
“The United States of America – shooting itself in both feet since 1776” ®
Perhaps the United States government considers US Persons abroad as a self-correcting problem.
@USX, Petros, Em, Deckard,
Re: USX’s comment about the missing sentence:
No problem. I see it’s there now. Looks like there was a lot of serious concern, though.
As I understood this thread was to focus on “The Democrats Abroad Paradox. It went right over my head that it was supposed to also focus on the composition and expansion of the Isaac Brock Society.
I’m very much more interested in reading about the workings and effectiveness of IBS than of US political parties. I haven’t been a citizen of that country for most of my life and I know a total of 3 people who live there but, as I said, I understood this particular post to be focused on reaching out more than looking in.
That being said, you bring up two points, those being: (1) partial quotations; and (2) inclusiveness at Brock.
(1) My thoughts on partial quotations
USX wrote [emphasis in original]:
referring to Michael’s comment, of which I quoted only the part about the Democrats Abroad in creating this new thread “The Democrats Abroad Paradox.” I used ellipsis to indicate that it was an excerpt from a longer quote:
The following words, which I did not include, are:
My understanding from e-mails with Deckard, both prior to creating this post and after he read it online, was that this post was to focus specifically on the Democrats Abroad paradox. Although we exchanged e-mails throughout the day, I did not learn of his concern about the Brock effectiveness comment until I read his comment on this thread.
Therefore in quoting Michael, I only put in the Democrats Abroad aspect of his original comment, with ellipses indicating that it was an excerpt from a longer writing. FWIW, I also excerpted, with ellipses, today a quote from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs on another thread.
Although they rarely use ellipses, I note that people posting on Brock almost exclusively quote only a sentence or two, not entire comments, when they quote. I think that’s a good thing, to use only partial quotes, and I hope it continues — because if everybody starts quoting entire comments, we’ll end up with pretty clunky threads and lots of scrolling.
(2) My thoughts on inclusivity
You guys raise a very important point. Deckard commented:
Me too! In fact, at the time I created this thread this morning, I wrote directly to Michael with the link to it, as I thought it might be of particular interest to him, and specifically asked him to join the discussion.
Creating a thread based on a person’s comment and sending them a personal e-mail is likely taken as an indicator of welcome, not as an indicator of being shut out or shut up. And I’m sure, USX, the comments you’ve made on this thread are making new readers feel welcome here too.
At any rate, the “missing sentence” really resonates with me because I’m all for Brock reaching out and being inclusive. I think the whole point is spreading the message and working together. Regardless of political views or even connection to the USA (ranging from virtually nil in some of us to a close and important bond in others), we all have something in common in this fight. The bigger the Brock tent, the better!
If the US thought of us as a self-correcting problem, then they would let you go without complaining about taxes not being filed or use that as an excuse to revoke your citizenship. Since they don’t do either, they seem to think of you as a “cash cow”.
@The Animal
Which scenario has been and will continue to be the most pursued by the USG, the one where they let us go gratis, or after paying tribute? Being of no net gain to the USG as citizens abroad, I would think they’d choose the latter. The US government has no mechanism in place that allows for the unencumbered extraterritorial movement of its citizens. NONE that I know of. Self-correcting problem: leave (renounce) or return to the motherland.
bubblebustin’.
it’s *sarcasm*. buddy.
I’m thoroughly disgusted by the whole damned situation. Tempted to give the USG the finger and tell them to come after me. Because they’ll get my wife after they go through me first. Of course if I tell them that. They’ll send me a summons via means of a Hellfire through the window courtesy of your friendly neighbourhood Predator drone.
@The Animal
I guess they really meant it when they called it “land of the free”, because once you leave it you’re in shackles. I think they’ve already made their target with their drone fired hellfire missile, only we’re still standing! I wish more spouses of USP’s fought as you do for your wife. Perhaps so many are accustomed to freedom being ubiquitous that they don’t recognize when it’s being threatened, or what that means. Odd that the source of the only persecution I’ve ever felt in my life has been from my own country. I hope that the second isn’t the other. 🙁
*Thanks everyone, I have not been shooed away but have down with the flu. Thanks to what I learn here and elsewhere — including from the much-missed Andy Sundberg — I have taught my three dual-citizen children all about citizenship-based taxation and what it means for them as accidental citizens. I’ve advised them to wait until they are in their late 20s and the arc of their lives is clearer before giving serious consideration to renouncing. Makes me both angry and sad to have to advise them to give up something that should be precious.
*On December 10, 1979 the President’s Export Council submitted its unanamous report to President Carter. This report contained the following statement:
“Americans working overseas are essential to a viable export program. An increase in the number of Americans assigned abroad can increase our exports, reduce the negative balance of payments, enhance our country’s image, and raise employment in the U.S.
Recognizing that it is in the best interest of our nation to encourage Americans to work overseas, the Task Force recommends the adoption of tax policies that are comparable to those of major competing industrial nations, none of which now tax citizens who meet overseas residency tests. We urge the development and enactment of new legislation to put Americans who work in the private sector overseas on the same tax footing as citizens of competing industrial nations.”
Unfortunatly nothing concrete was done to implement this recognation and here we are 34 years later witha $750 billion trade deficit which translates into some 7.9 million destroyed American jobs producing for export, the human rights destroyed for persons with US citizenship living abroad who, because of FATCA cannot open or maintain bank accounts in the countries where the live, and record numbers renouncing their citizenship because they simply cannot survive unless they do so.
To top it off in these days of fiscal crisis for the US the citizenship-based tax policy enshrined in US law which is, in my opinion, the prime cause of this massive trade deficit and its resulting unemployment produces only about $6 billion for the US Treasury while the trade deficit destroys some $136 billion in tax revenues. How can this possibly make any sense to anybody in Washington?
Surely none of this can be more important than the revelation that Bouncy was lip-syncing!
@bubblebustin
Or Michelle’s new bangs and wardrobe 😉
@Roger, ACA’s estimate of $6 billion is based on the statistics of forms 2555 and 1116. However, I recently found a table from the IRS that shows specifically the taxes paid by individuals residing outside the US: 2011, previous years. The table lists the revenue collected from taxpayers in each state, DC, US territories, US military abroad, and an entry named “international”, which includes both US citizens and foreigners with an address outside the US. In 2011, “international” taxpayers paid $6.9 billion in individual income taxes, but $3.7 billion of it was collected through withholding, which is by definition tax on US income, and probably mostly of foreign investors. $3.2 billion was paid directly by individuals, so only this amount, and probably not all of it, could have possibly been tax on foreign income.
In sum, citizenship-based taxation produces, at most, $3.2 billion to the US per year. This represents about 0.14% of the total federal revenue.
Correction: The $3.7 billion does not include most tax withheld of foreign investors, and it can include tax withheld on foreign income, mostly by US companies on their employees who are US citizens residing abroad. Their salaries are considered foreign income because the source of income for salaries is considered the place where the person works, not where the payment comes from. So the estimate of $6 billion seems correct, but it’s still less than 0.3% of the federal revenue.
*@Shadow Raider, it is tough to get a real handle on the exact figure for tax revenues collected from US citizens residing abroad. Some who US citizens deployed abroad maintain US addresses and use them when they submit their US tax returns for reasons of mail security. My daughter lived and worked for the Venezuealan unit of one of the US big 4 accounting firms, but always used a US address for her tax returns because unreliable mail delivery in Venezuela was a matter of concern. Her employer used a courier service with a PO Box address in Miami for their US-Venezuela correspondence.
This is true in many developing countries. When I worked for ITT in Brazil in the 1970s it also used a daily courier service. Couriers were also commonly used within Brazil for correspondence within the country. I recall 45 years ago when there was a postal strike in Argentina. When the strike, which lasted for several weeks was finally settled the mountains of undelivered mail that had accumulated were uncerimoniously burned in bonfires.
For this reason there are taxpayers abroad, nobody knows how many, who use a US address for submitting their tax returns, forms 1116, 2555, etc. even though they may have lived abroad for many years and are bona-fide resididents of a foreign country. That indeed makes it somewhat complicated for the IRS to accurately sort out tax revenues from US citizens living abroad.
Here is a lead on where to get the Carter report:
bookadda.com/books/u-s-law-affecting-americans-jimmy-carter-089499123x-9780894991233
http://hdl.handle.net/2027/pur1.32754074746458
fulltext access @ Hathitrust
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations., .
(1980).
U.S. law affecting Americans living and
working abroad: Presidential reports submitted in response to section
611, Public Law 95-426 (as amended by section 407, Public Law 96-60) : a
report to the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate.
Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off..
*I’ve always respected Carter, but did he deserve such respect? What can he do for Americans abroad?