120 thoughts on “MUST READ paper defending FATCA and Citizenship based taxation”
@all
This post is one of the most interesting Brock posts I have read. I could envision all of you commenting sitting around a table like on TVO. I wish you all could repeat what you said and put it on you tube.
could you?
at least send this post with all the comments to him and his publishers . Deadly fascinating.
I’ll keep my response relatively short and simple. This “Article”, which the author vaingloriously presents like it’s the frikken’ Ten Commandments, merely reconfirms that academia is still teeming with some of the greatest morons inhabiting this planet. In my experience, more footnotes invariably equals fewer original thoughts – and there are an awful lot of footnotes in this piece of birdcage-liner masquerading as scholarly research.
Anyone who believes that there is great academic debate over the relative merits of CBT and RBT has conveniently overlooked the simple fact that the only two poster-children for CBT in the entire world are the failed-state of Eritrea and the soon-to-be-failed-state of the United States of America – soulmates to the bitter end. Yeah, there’s fodder here for some heavy debate alright.
All we need is 193 countries now to practice citizenship taxation, and no country tax based upon residency, and it would be Nirvana I guess. Is that what he is basically proposing? A new utopia?
With it comes the end all global migration too, as no country would allow a low taxation Citizen to live in a high taxation country and just pay taxes back to the country where they hold citizenship.
So, then, one would absolutely have to give up your citizenship of origin in exchange for citizenship of residency for this nirvana to work. Basically, the result would be, you can not move unless you obtain in advance Citizenship where you plan to reside and drop your Citizenship when you leave. This would end dual citizenship too. How does this work in a global economy? Not his problem to consider, I guess.
Any suggestion of mounting a campaign against Prof. Kirsch’s employer or the editor of the journal where the article is published is seriously misdirected if you have any respect for freedom of speech. His article sets forth serious arguments in favor of CBT which goes beyond hollow slogans. All the abuse here is just childish – what we need are rational arguments. Victoria shows how it should be done:
There is a lot of respect for freedom of speech. Isaac Brock was born from that mother. I personally wouldn’t put a lot of effort into protesting the Professor’s employer. I doubt anyone else here would either, and I see any comments you might see as just letting off steam.
You are right about Victoria’s moderate tones and approach. But, that said, bottomline, his is a very flawed argument and hard to take seriously as it overlooks the natural progression of what would happen if all countries should follow U.S. Citizenship taxation model. If it is good enough for America with all it’s negative consequences, then why don’t France, Germany, UK Switzerland, China, Greece etc, etc, etc 193 times follow suit? What would that look like? He hasn’t even considered it, as his is typical academic myopia. The fear I have is that others might decide to copy cat America, like they do FATCA, and that would be a disaster for the world’s economy.
After digesting the regurgitated nonsense from Mr. Kirsch I decided to surf the net and came across this interesting piece. It might even have a Canadian co-author? 😯
“…… then why don’t France, Germany, UK Switzerland, China, Greece etc, etc, etc 193 times follow suit? What would that look like? He hasn’t even considered it, as his is typical academic myopia. The fear I have is that others might decide to copy cat America, like they do FATCA, and that would be a disaster for the world’s economy.”
CBT is comparable to a disease that mankind unfortunately will never be able to totally eradicate. 🙁
@Just Me
One thing that struck me while reading Kirsch’s article was that he had clearly been reading widely on what RBT advocates are saying because he was addressing some of our arguments. It’s quite possible he’s looked at IBS. It’s likely that people who disagree with us or who sit on the fence are visiting this site. It’s understandable that posters want to blow off steam but our goal is to change people’s minds. Let’s try to do better the usual comment sections you see on newspaper articles.
Kirsch’s fallacious logic for justifying the taxation of people (expats) who consume NO US public goods or services and have ZERO congressmen or senators to represent their interests is exactly why so many Americans abroad are bitter with the US and renouncing their citizenships.
America’s founders did it in 1776, todays expats are doing it now.
USCitizenAbroad, I think you should write him and editor in chief with your comments.
A prescribed tone for Brock? F*ck that!
Yes, @Taxandconfuzaled, I’m concerned that your negative tone will merely turn him off. If we’re going to write, we’ll have to have reasoned arguments without getting too angry sounding…
Comment moved at Taxconfuzaled request.
@ monalisa1776
Mr. KIrsch is already tuned out so I don’t see why we should worry about him being turned off too. He is the Harvard grad professor and we are not. It is up to him to do the “reasonable” thing which he did not do with his paper. Why should we rein in our true feelings about what he wrote? Are we afraid he might throw an eraser at us or something? I am a Canadian in Canada and after this FATCA fatwa I’m less and less inclined to worry too much about the feelings of any American in the U.S.A. who either created this mess or enables it to continue.
@Em
LOL! He didn’t throw an eraser at us but he did send us home with extra homework!
@Johnson
You say:
“Any suggestion of mounting a campaign against Prof. Kirsch’s employer or the editor of the journal where the article is published is seriously misdirected if you have any respect for freedom of speech.”
First, as Just Me said this has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom of speech. He has the freedom to say what he wants. Others have the freedom to respond and that’s exactly what’s going on.
I would separate the issues of mounting campaigns against Notre Dame (his employer) and The University of Florida Law school law review – the publisher.
Here is a comment made by Professor Kirsch himself while addressing the 2010 graduating class of Notre Dame law school:
The large majority of people that you come into contact with over the course of your life will never have the opportunity to visit our campus. Whether it’s a client in your private law practice or legal aid clinic; students who you teach; members of the community who are affected by your volunteer work; or anyone else impacted by you, personally or professionally—they won’t have the opportunity to see our beautiful buildings.
Instead, in their eyes, you are Notre Dame. You will be the edifice of the Notre Dame Law School that the rest of the world will see as you disperse across the country and around the globe. And that has the potential to create a much larger impact than even the most impressive of buildings can make.
The University of Florida is considered to be a very prestigious LL.M. in tax. It therefore has a strong interest in publishing articles of only the highest quality. You may agree with Victoria that it was “a nicely written article with clear arguments” http://thefranco-americanflophouse.blogspot.ca/2013/11/defending-citizenship-based-taxation.html or you may agree with others who respond on a more visceral level.
In my opinion this article consists of little original thought and analysis. At best it is a summary of what other “scholars” have written on this topic. It’s true weakness is that it simply does not address in any serious matter why the U.S. should practice citizenship-based taxation to begin with. It doesn’t address the reasoning in the Cook v. Tait. It doesn’t address the issues of whether the effect of citizenship-based taxation is in violation of international law. It doesn’t address the question of whether “information returns” are justifiable under the 16th amendment, and much more …
Therefore, I don’t think this article is worthy of publication in the University of Florida Tax journal (or whatever the thing is called). And yes, I think that Journal should know that this is a weak article with little or no original analysis (is the observation that people use Skype somehow original?).
Therefore, the Isaac Brock Society would do the Florida Tax Journal a great service by letting them know that this article will hurt the prestige of their publication.
A quick placement of this link so I don’t lose it. Must run as I have appointments waiting.
So, what will this mean for US Tax Preparation Fees for ‘US Persons Abroad’?
@ Calgary411
I filed for my husband and me from 1969 to 1993 inclusive my US tax returns without a tax account. I never owned any money. I found looking for the US dolllar conversion from Cdn dollars to US dollars a real bother. I did not know about FBARS. I was never informed I was doing the forms incorrectly by IRS. One year the IRS sent me a over $2000 cheque as an overpayment. I called the IRS to tell them of the mistake and sent the cheque back with a letter stating why. I still have a copy of the cheque and letter. My last US tax return was for year 1993 as that was the year I became a Cdn citizen.
I do my own Cdn taxes with turbo tax. I did use a Cdn tax accountant for about 4 years after my husband died. He charged me $60 each year.
The last time I used him I did my Cdn taxes on the turbo tax software but was not sure if it was right so I had my tax accountant who did my taxes do them and he came out to same amounts as I did, right to the penny.
It seems like there is a real heavy cost to file US taxes, ordinary ones. Our
Tax filing fees would be in the higher charges most likely. These US accountants are very well paid.
Thanks for that @calgary411.
@all,
What about a thread here at Brock with a Survey Monkey thing asking how much readers ‘abroad’ outside the US paid for their annual US compliance ritual this year (or a stretch of years? ex. 2009-2012 for ‘Streamlined’)? Would be good to shine a big bright spotlight on what the US demands of us. And to demonstrate that US citizenship has now become an exclusive club that most of us can no longer afford to belong to, but the US tries to prevent us from leaving – membership is mandatory, and the State Department and the IRS and Treasury erect higher and higher barriers to prevent anyone from exiting the club .
This from the article http://www.accountingtoday.com/news/tax-prep-fees-on-the-rise-68970-1.html about costs for US tax preparation services (inside the US, for US residents) that @calgary411 cites above:
….”Taxpayers can expect to pay an average of $261 for an itemized Form 1040 with Schedule A and a state tax return, the survey found, compared to the $246 reported in last year’s survey.
The fee for non-itemized return will also rise, to $152 for a Form 1040 and state return, against $143 last year.”………
We pay so much much more just for the privilege of proving to the US, from afar, yet again, without any services or benefits, that on top of the FULL taxes we pay in Canada or another home country, we owe them nothing, are not criminal-tax-evading-druglord-money-laundering-terror-funders, and are deserving of not being obliterated for another year by any one of the myriad of labyrinthine reporting form pitfalls and traps the IRS and Treasury have designed for anyone they designate as a ‘US taxable person’ ‘abroad’.
Compare to the cost of having your Canadian taxes done for you at home in Canada, or for simple Canadian personal returns done yourself with paper and pencil or inexpensive tax software.
Being a US citizen living outside the US has become an exclusive club for those with company resources to assist, or the means to pay unlimited US tax and legal fees. Who can afford the annual and lifelong membership fees that the US charges? Just to prove that we are still not criminals and owe nothing to the US – since we have paid up in full to Canada where we actually live and receive services and benefits.
I called around, and from those who would still do a US return (without of course any state return), and was quoted from a base rate of 350. up to ‘unlimited’ for a 1040, plus a single 3520 and 3520A (many said they don’t do 3520/A anymore or at all) – to report a very small defunct TFSA, a few RRSPs and income so miniscule that it barely incurred tax in Canada. No mutual funds, no stocks, no other complexities. No US taxes due. FBAR done without professional help.
Contrast that with the $35. or the like for Canadian tax software for DIY.
@Northernstar, one of the main reasons I renounced was because I would have continued to be burdened with at least $2000 annually in accounting fees which is extortunate at my low level of income. (under $30,000). Chances are they could have risen north of $5000 too.
One of Kirsch’s arguments for CBT is that, without it, Americans would pack up and emigrate to countries with low tax rates. The EU allows freedom of movement among EU countries. If Kirsch’s view held water that people emigrate for lower tax rates, then there should be movement from EU countries with high taxes to ones with low tax rates.
First of all, there is actually little movement among the citizens of EU countries with only 2.5% of EU citizens living outside of their country of citizenship. Also, many citizens of one EU country who live in another were actually born there but inherited the citizenship of their parents or grandparents who were immigrants, so the 2.5% may overstate what it is trying to show:
A statistic that jumps out is how many EU but non-Belgian citizens live in Belgium (6.8%) compared with other western EU countries of roughly similar population size, such as the Netherlands (2.0%), Denmark (2.3%) and Austria (4.2%). Belgium (with Denmark) are considered to have the highest tax rates in the EU but EU citizens move to Belgium anyway.
Another interesting statistic regarding Belgium and the Netherlands is the number of cross-border employees who reside in one country and work in the other. Belgium has higher income tax rates than the Netherlands but lower employee social charges. Residents of Belgium who work in the Netherlands pay the Dutch social charges (where they work), which are higher than the Belgian, and pay Belgian income taxes (where they reside), which are higher than Dutch income taxes. Conversely, residents of the Netherlands who work in Belgium pay the lower Belgian social charges and the lower Dutch income taxes. Using Kirsch’s reasoning that people try to optimize their tax rates through migration, it would then be expected that more Dutch would work in Belgium (and continue to reside in the Netherlands) and fewer Belgians would work in the Netherlands (and continue to reside in Belgium). The statistics show the opposite:
Belgian residents working in the Netherlands: 13,256 (1995)
Dutch residents working in Belgium: 3,600 (1995)
My view: Most people migrate within the EU for jobs and family reasons. They also work cross-border for the same reasons. Emigrating for lower tax rates does not appear to be much of a factor in the EU.
Great post. Europeans have different mindset than Americans. They value quality of life and family time over money. They have more social benefits and are willing to pay for them through taxes. I have close friends who emigrated to Europe who see and tell me this.
So Kirsh is an advocate of emigration controls and believes in blocking freedom of movement, one of the fundamental rights identified under the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Did he ever consider he may want to emigrate himself one day. What will he do then?
@all
This post is one of the most interesting Brock posts I have read. I could envision all of you commenting sitting around a table like on TVO. I wish you all could repeat what you said and put it on you tube.
could you?
at least send this post with all the comments to him and his publishers . Deadly fascinating.
Some of you may wish to leave comments here:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2013/11/kirsch-.html
I’ll keep my response relatively short and simple. This “Article”, which the author vaingloriously presents like it’s the frikken’ Ten Commandments, merely reconfirms that academia is still teeming with some of the greatest morons inhabiting this planet. In my experience, more footnotes invariably equals fewer original thoughts – and there are an awful lot of footnotes in this piece of birdcage-liner masquerading as scholarly research.
Anyone who believes that there is great academic debate over the relative merits of CBT and RBT has conveniently overlooked the simple fact that the only two poster-children for CBT in the entire world are the failed-state of Eritrea and the soon-to-be-failed-state of the United States of America – soulmates to the bitter end. Yeah, there’s fodder here for some heavy debate alright.
All we need is 193 countries now to practice citizenship taxation, and no country tax based upon residency, and it would be Nirvana I guess. Is that what he is basically proposing? A new utopia?
With it comes the end all global migration too, as no country would allow a low taxation Citizen to live in a high taxation country and just pay taxes back to the country where they hold citizenship.
So, then, one would absolutely have to give up your citizenship of origin in exchange for citizenship of residency for this nirvana to work. Basically, the result would be, you can not move unless you obtain in advance Citizenship where you plan to reside and drop your Citizenship when you leave. This would end dual citizenship too. How does this work in a global economy? Not his problem to consider, I guess.
Any suggestion of mounting a campaign against Prof. Kirsch’s employer or the editor of the journal where the article is published is seriously misdirected if you have any respect for freedom of speech. His article sets forth serious arguments in favor of CBT which goes beyond hollow slogans. All the abuse here is just childish – what we need are rational arguments. Victoria shows how it should be done:
Defending Citizenship-Based Taxation
@Johnson…
There is a lot of respect for freedom of speech. Isaac Brock was born from that mother. I personally wouldn’t put a lot of effort into protesting the Professor’s employer. I doubt anyone else here would either, and I see any comments you might see as just letting off steam.
You are right about Victoria’s moderate tones and approach. But, that said, bottomline, his is a very flawed argument and hard to take seriously as it overlooks the natural progression of what would happen if all countries should follow U.S. Citizenship taxation model. If it is good enough for America with all it’s negative consequences, then why don’t France, Germany, UK Switzerland, China, Greece etc, etc, etc 193 times follow suit? What would that look like? He hasn’t even considered it, as his is typical academic myopia. The fear I have is that others might decide to copy cat America, like they do FATCA, and that would be a disaster for the world’s economy.
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2012/02/16/what-is-the-systemic-risk-to-the-worlds-economy/
After digesting the regurgitated nonsense from Mr. Kirsch I decided to surf the net and came across this interesting piece. It might even have a Canadian co-author? 😯
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FB%3AITAX.0000036696.58785.f9
@ Just Me, ALL
“…… then why don’t France, Germany, UK Switzerland, China, Greece etc, etc, etc 193 times follow suit? What would that look like? He hasn’t even considered it, as his is typical academic myopia. The fear I have is that others might decide to copy cat America, like they do FATCA, and that would be a disaster for the world’s economy.”
CBT is comparable to a disease that mankind unfortunately will never be able to totally eradicate. 🙁
@Just Me
One thing that struck me while reading Kirsch’s article was that he had clearly been reading widely on what RBT advocates are saying because he was addressing some of our arguments. It’s quite possible he’s looked at IBS. It’s likely that people who disagree with us or who sit on the fence are visiting this site. It’s understandable that posters want to blow off steam but our goal is to change people’s minds. Let’s try to do better the usual comment sections you see on newspaper articles.
Kirsch’s fallacious logic for justifying the taxation of people (expats) who consume NO US public goods or services and have ZERO congressmen or senators to represent their interests is exactly why so many Americans abroad are bitter with the US and renouncing their citizenships.
America’s founders did it in 1776, todays expats are doing it now.
USCitizenAbroad, I think you should write him and editor in chief with your comments.
A prescribed tone for Brock? F*ck that!
Yes, @Taxandconfuzaled, I’m concerned that your negative tone will merely turn him off. If we’re going to write, we’ll have to have reasoned arguments without getting too angry sounding…
Comment moved at Taxconfuzaled request.
@ monalisa1776
Mr. KIrsch is already tuned out so I don’t see why we should worry about him being turned off too. He is the Harvard grad professor and we are not. It is up to him to do the “reasonable” thing which he did not do with his paper. Why should we rein in our true feelings about what he wrote? Are we afraid he might throw an eraser at us or something? I am a Canadian in Canada and after this FATCA fatwa I’m less and less inclined to worry too much about the feelings of any American in the U.S.A. who either created this mess or enables it to continue.
@Em
LOL! He didn’t throw an eraser at us but he did send us home with extra homework!
@Johnson
You say:
“Any suggestion of mounting a campaign against Prof. Kirsch’s employer or the editor of the journal where the article is published is seriously misdirected if you have any respect for freedom of speech.”
First, as Just Me said this has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom of speech. He has the freedom to say what he wants. Others have the freedom to respond and that’s exactly what’s going on.
I would separate the issues of mounting campaigns against Notre Dame (his employer) and The University of Florida Law school law review – the publisher.
Here is a comment made by Professor Kirsch himself while addressing the 2010 graduating class of Notre Dame law school:
http://law.nd.edu/news/15634-featured-faculty-michael-kirsch/
The University of Florida is considered to be a very prestigious LL.M. in tax. It therefore has a strong interest in publishing articles of only the highest quality. You may agree with Victoria that it was “a nicely written article with clear arguments” http://thefranco-americanflophouse.blogspot.ca/2013/11/defending-citizenship-based-taxation.html or you may agree with others who respond on a more visceral level.
In my opinion this article consists of little original thought and analysis. At best it is a summary of what other “scholars” have written on this topic. It’s true weakness is that it simply does not address in any serious matter why the U.S. should practice citizenship-based taxation to begin with. It doesn’t address the reasoning in the Cook v. Tait. It doesn’t address the issues of whether the effect of citizenship-based taxation is in violation of international law. It doesn’t address the question of whether “information returns” are justifiable under the 16th amendment, and much more …
Therefore, I don’t think this article is worthy of publication in the University of Florida Tax journal (or whatever the thing is called). And yes, I think that Journal should know that this is a weak article with little or no original analysis (is the observation that people use Skype somehow original?).
Therefore, the Isaac Brock Society would do the Florida Tax Journal a great service by letting them know that this article will hurt the prestige of their publication.
A quick placement of this link so I don’t lose it. Must run as I have appointments waiting.
News that US Tax Preparation Fees are on the rise
So, what will this mean for US Tax Preparation Fees for ‘US Persons Abroad’?
@ Calgary411
I filed for my husband and me from 1969 to 1993 inclusive my US tax returns without a tax account. I never owned any money. I found looking for the US dolllar conversion from Cdn dollars to US dollars a real bother. I did not know about FBARS. I was never informed I was doing the forms incorrectly by IRS. One year the IRS sent me a over $2000 cheque as an overpayment. I called the IRS to tell them of the mistake and sent the cheque back with a letter stating why. I still have a copy of the cheque and letter. My last US tax return was for year 1993 as that was the year I became a Cdn citizen.
I do my own Cdn taxes with turbo tax. I did use a Cdn tax accountant for about 4 years after my husband died. He charged me $60 each year.
The last time I used him I did my Cdn taxes on the turbo tax software but was not sure if it was right so I had my tax accountant who did my taxes do them and he came out to same amounts as I did, right to the penny.
It seems like there is a real heavy cost to file US taxes, ordinary ones. Our
Tax filing fees would be in the higher charges most likely. These US accountants are very well paid.
Thanks for that @calgary411.
@all,
What about a thread here at Brock with a Survey Monkey thing asking how much readers ‘abroad’ outside the US paid for their annual US compliance ritual this year (or a stretch of years? ex. 2009-2012 for ‘Streamlined’)? Would be good to shine a big bright spotlight on what the US demands of us. And to demonstrate that US citizenship has now become an exclusive club that most of us can no longer afford to belong to, but the US tries to prevent us from leaving – membership is mandatory, and the State Department and the IRS and Treasury erect higher and higher barriers to prevent anyone from exiting the club .
This from the article http://www.accountingtoday.com/news/tax-prep-fees-on-the-rise-68970-1.html about costs for US tax preparation services (inside the US, for US residents) that @calgary411 cites above:
….”Taxpayers can expect to pay an average of $261 for an itemized Form 1040 with Schedule A and a state tax return, the survey found, compared to the $246 reported in last year’s survey.
The fee for non-itemized return will also rise, to $152 for a Form 1040 and state return, against $143 last year.”………
We pay so much much more just for the privilege of proving to the US, from afar, yet again, without any services or benefits, that on top of the FULL taxes we pay in Canada or another home country, we owe them nothing, are not criminal-tax-evading-druglord-money-laundering-terror-funders, and are deserving of not being obliterated for another year by any one of the myriad of labyrinthine reporting form pitfalls and traps the IRS and Treasury have designed for anyone they designate as a ‘US taxable person’ ‘abroad’.
This is what a storefront chain would charge us for filing a US return from abroad – our permanent tax home in Canada;
http://www.hrblock.ca/services/US_tax_pricing.asp
Compare to the cost of having your Canadian taxes done for you at home in Canada, or for simple Canadian personal returns done yourself with paper and pencil or inexpensive tax software.
Being a US citizen living outside the US has become an exclusive club for those with company resources to assist, or the means to pay unlimited US tax and legal fees. Who can afford the annual and lifelong membership fees that the US charges? Just to prove that we are still not criminals and owe nothing to the US – since we have paid up in full to Canada where we actually live and receive services and benefits.
I called around, and from those who would still do a US return (without of course any state return), and was quoted from a base rate of 350. up to ‘unlimited’ for a 1040, plus a single 3520 and 3520A (many said they don’t do 3520/A anymore or at all) – to report a very small defunct TFSA, a few RRSPs and income so miniscule that it barely incurred tax in Canada. No mutual funds, no stocks, no other complexities. No US taxes due. FBAR done without professional help.
Contrast that with the $35. or the like for Canadian tax software for DIY.
@Northernstar, one of the main reasons I renounced was because I would have continued to be burdened with at least $2000 annually in accounting fees which is extortunate at my low level of income. (under $30,000). Chances are they could have risen north of $5000 too.
Pingback: Maybe #Americansabroad don’t file US tax returns because they can’t | US Tax Return Preparation Services for US persons abroad in Canada
One of Kirsch’s arguments for CBT is that, without it, Americans would pack up and emigrate to countries with low tax rates. The EU allows freedom of movement among EU countries. If Kirsch’s view held water that people emigrate for lower tax rates, then there should be movement from EU countries with high taxes to ones with low tax rates.
First of all, there is actually little movement among the citizens of EU countries with only 2.5% of EU citizens living outside of their country of citizenship. Also, many citizens of one EU country who live in another were actually born there but inherited the citizenship of their parents or grandparents who were immigrants, so the 2.5% may overstate what it is trying to show:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-11072012-AP/EN/3-11072012-AP-EN.PDF
A statistic that jumps out is how many EU but non-Belgian citizens live in Belgium (6.8%) compared with other western EU countries of roughly similar population size, such as the Netherlands (2.0%), Denmark (2.3%) and Austria (4.2%). Belgium (with Denmark) are considered to have the highest tax rates in the EU but EU citizens move to Belgium anyway.
Another interesting statistic regarding Belgium and the Netherlands is the number of cross-border employees who reside in one country and work in the other. Belgium has higher income tax rates than the Netherlands but lower employee social charges. Residents of Belgium who work in the Netherlands pay the Dutch social charges (where they work), which are higher than the Belgian, and pay Belgian income taxes (where they reside), which are higher than Dutch income taxes. Conversely, residents of the Netherlands who work in Belgium pay the lower Belgian social charges and the lower Dutch income taxes. Using Kirsch’s reasoning that people try to optimize their tax rates through migration, it would then be expected that more Dutch would work in Belgium (and continue to reside in the Netherlands) and fewer Belgians would work in the Netherlands (and continue to reside in Belgium). The statistics show the opposite:
Belgian residents working in the Netherlands: 13,256 (1995)
Dutch residents working in Belgium: 3,600 (1995)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/workingpapers/soci/w16/summary_en.htm
My view: Most people migrate within the EU for jobs and family reasons. They also work cross-border for the same reasons. Emigrating for lower tax rates does not appear to be much of a factor in the EU.
Great post. Europeans have different mindset than Americans. They value quality of life and family time over money. They have more social benefits and are willing to pay for them through taxes. I have close friends who emigrated to Europe who see and tell me this.
So Kirsh is an advocate of emigration controls and believes in blocking freedom of movement, one of the fundamental rights identified under the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Did he ever consider he may want to emigrate himself one day. What will he do then?