Democrat Candidates have little to offer #Americansabroad there will still be #FATCA #FBAR #CBT taxes – Let Us Go! https://t.co/voSFLVhznq
— Patricia Moon (@nobledreamer16) February 4, 2016
Over the past few years the sheet distributed by the Obama 2008 team has been discussed here with regard to Supporting Americans Abroad (or rather, how it did not support them). Yesterday, Democrats Abroad released a set of questions and answers put to their Presidential Candidates. I thought it might be interesting to review what Mr. Obama said/did while contemplating whether there would be any improvement in the situation for expats based upon the statements of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders.
Mr. Obama
What He Said: Strengthen Economic Security for Americans Abroad
…he will work with Americans abroad to identify and understand problems they may face as a result of U.S. government policies.
What He Delivered: Closure of Bank Accounts; Inability to obtain/renew mortgages
What He Said: Census of Americans Abroad
What He Delivered: Nada
What He Said: Concerns of Americans Living Abroad
As president, Obama will work to establish a direct dialogue with Americans abroad.
What He Delivered: we are “Tax Cheats” “Traitors” “Don’t Pay Our Fair Share” oh, and not to forget, we must report our everyday bank accounts to FINCEN and endure considerable terror tactics used to try and get us to enter “amnesty” programs designed for criminals
What He Said: Other Governmental Services and Benefits
…..ensure that U.S. State Department staff members have proper training to assist Americans abroad in determining their various rights and responsibilities as American citizens
What He Delivered: OVDP/OVDI FATCA Form 8938 Renunciation Fee Raised 422%
So with those thoughts in mind, here are the questions that Democrats Abroad prepared and presented to Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Sanders and a Mr.Rocky De La Fuente.
FATCA: Would you support the FATCA “Same Country Safe Harbor” for Americans abroad, the regulatory reform that Democrats Abroad recommends for fixing FATCA’s problems but retaining its strength?
RBT: Would you support the replacement of the current system of taxing overseas Americans, known as citizenship-based taxation, with a system of residence-based taxation?
FBAR: Would you support reforms to FBAR regulations to address these concerns and inequities?
Medicare portability: Would you support an amendment to the Medicare law permitting American citizens to use Medicare benefits to pay for health care in approved medical facilities located outside the USA?
HR-3078: Would you support the establishment of a Commission on Americans Abroad to study and propose remedies to U.S. policies that harm or unfairly burden Americans living outside the U.S. (as provided for in House bill HR-3078)?
Windfall Eliminations Provision “WEP”: Would you support the examination of the WEP and its impact on U.S. citizens abroad to establish a remedy that preserves the social security benefits fairly earned by Americans abroad through their U.S. working life?
FAST Act passport revocation: Would you support, as part of the implementation of the 2015 FAST Act, these requests aimed at preserving the security of Americans abroad and their families?
Interesting @Demsabroad "reach out" shows #Americansabroad should not support Hilary Clinton – See here: https://t.co/1POSb7PscI
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) February 3, 2016
Mrs. Clinton:
On FATCA “Same Country Safe Harbor”
harder to open a bank account, harder to save for retirement, and harder to get a mortgage. I know that the vast majority of Americans living abroad are paying their fair share,
On RBT
I believe that we need a broad discussion about reforming our tax code to cut taxes for hard-working, middle class American families living both here and abroad….making sure that the wealthiest Americans can’t move overseas to avoid paying taxes…. a complicated issue and I will work with Americans living abroad and members of Congress to cut taxes
On reform to FBAR
to examine filing requirements with the aim of avoiding redundancies and minimizing unnecessary paperwork and confusion.
On HR 3078
The government…crafts solutions that are executable at home but nearly impossible to implement overseas other than at an enormous cost to our citizens living abroad
On FAST Act passport revocation
Every American should pay what they owe under our tax laws. …… I will ensure that Americans receive timely and accurate information about their tax responsibilities and are given ample opportunity to remedy or resolve any related issues, within a reasonable timeframe, before a passport is revoked due to a tax delinquency.
I am rather certain Mrs. Clinton does not really have a grip on the situation of expats. This is difficult to fathom since the largest number of Americans in history have renounced under her watch at the State Dept. Her comments in response to Safe Harbour show no familiarity with what it is. “Harder” to deal with the effects of FATCA? How about those who simply can’t get accounts difficult or have had them closed? And while a lovely sentiment, where she gets the idea that the vast majority of Americans abroad even know about their tax obligations, never mind are actually paying them, is a mystery to me. “Reforming our tax code to….cut taxes…cut taxes….” does not address RBT. No one needs to have foreign taxes cut if RBT were adopted. The comments about FBAR reform are moot. And she better be careful about that last promise………anyone care to count the number of times she uses the words “cut taxes?”
Mr. Sanders:
On Safe Harbour:
permit the U.S. Treasury to focus on curbing tax avoidance by Americans living inside the United States who move their money to offshore tax havens to avoid paying taxes.On RBT:
deserves serious consideration… we can provide tax relief to middle-class families living overseas..On FBAR reform:
shows he is familiar with issues but his comments do not indicate any real relief from FBAR requirements
HR-3078
examine the impact of federal financial reporting requirements, the ability to vote in U.S. elections, and access to federal programs like Social Security and Medicare for Americans living abroad.on FAST Act:
have access to information on tax debts and proper notice before the IRS requests that the State Department revoke or deny the renewal of the passports of U.S. citizens.
Mr. Sanders seems to be somewhat more aware, possibly open to somewhat more relaxed conditions but I see nothing to indicate strong support for anything that would actually change this situation. IOW, neither have any meaningful platform to address our issues. Then again, would these have been your questions of choice? What about simply releasing Accidental Americans from these ridiculous “requirements? What about rectifying the onerous treatment of those minnows who entered the OVDI programs? What about dealing with the lack of reciprocity in the IGA’s? What about not taxing our tax-deferred savings plans in our countries of residence? How about the immorality of imposing FATCA and its costs completely on other countries? How about honoring the relinquishments of those you told were no longer citizens? How about getting your noses out of our “alien” spouses’ financial information? How about letting children born abroad decide for themselves if they want to be Americans? and on and on and on………..
@Tricia
I know my postings here–and in private email–have been really, really harsh lately. But on the Republican side I truly wanted to believe in Rand Paul. I’ve wanted that for the last two years. But Senator Rand Paul in the end lacked the courage of his convictions and that is why he is where he is today.
@Dash
It is sad about Rand Paul. I guess I’ve been away so long that I don’t understand why people find him so odd. I am sort of glad I cannot vote because I don’t really think there is anyone to vote for….It would be difficult for anyone to continue when there is so little support…..There is no way I could vote for a Democrat…….
You edited both Clinton’s and Sanders’ comments, and in my opinion, didn’t highlight the right things.
Clinton on FATCA: I am committed to working with Americans living abroad and members of Congress to find the right solutions. (In other words, empty blather devoid of substance)
Clinton on RBT: Americans, regardless of where they live, often benefit from American education, infrastructure, legal protections, and trade policies. (In other words, I ♥ CBT)
Clinton on FBAR: Any reforms would also need to be scrutinized to avoid weakening government capacity for monitoring illegal activity or tax avoidance (In other words, I ♥ FBAR)
Clinton on the other issues: Bla bla bla (dodging each question with high-sounding words about “ensuring every American…yadda yadda yadda”)
Sanders on FATCA: I ♥ ‘Same Country Safe Harbor’
Sanders on RBT: Other than Eritrea, the U.S. is the only country that I am aware of that requires the filing of two annual tax returns… (and then he fails to say another word of substance on the matter. But at least he (or more likely an aide who composed his response) demonstrated a bit of knowledge of the issue)
Sanders on FBAR: I look forward to working with Democrats abroad to address these concerns and make this system more equitable. (In other words, I ♥ FBARs, but let’s tweak them, and I have no suggestions of substance.)
The fact that Sanders actually addressed the topics directly, without wishy-washy dodge words, at least wins him points for frankness. Clinton now takes first place as the worst of the worst candidates as far as US expats are concerned.
Put comments on Democrats Abroad Facebook site
Democrats Abroad Australia
Can not seem to post on DA
New bad news regarding Rand Paul dropping out
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/03/politics/rand-paul-dropping-out-of-presidential-race/index.html
Definition of insanity–doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different outcome; i.e., voting for DemocRAT candidates hoping/expecting they will address/stop the persecution of expat/overseas Americans–ain’t going to happen. The GOP professional politicians do not have a much better track record, but at least some have expressly stated they will repeal FATCA and push for RBT as part of comprehenisve tax reform. And the worst of the persecution has happened over the past 7 years under the democrats’ control of the WH and 1 or both houses of Congress. Choice is pretty clear to anyone with functioning grey matter.
I said this over on the media articles thread, and I’ll repeat it here in modified form. It’s worse than merely “CBT will continue”: both of the Democratic candidates want some form of tax on investment income to be paid by everyone (Clinton as an extension of the payroll tax, Sanders as a “premium” for his new Medicare for All system)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-socialsecurity-idUSMTZSAPEC1RLFRJKN
http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/19/pf/taxes/bernie-sanders-taxes/
As the Democrats refuse to admit and we’ve been saying on Brock for years, not just “the wealthy” but everyone living “offshore” ends up having “investment income”, because of the American propensity for inventing income out of thin air.
This is yet another iteration of the Same Old Problem with CBT: CBT is a piss-poor way of extracting cash from the diaspora because of the existence of Foreign Tax Credits, and the Homeland wants more cash. Eritrea solves that issue by not signing any tax treaties and thus not being obligated to grant any FTCs. The USA does not have that choice, so they inevitably do one or both of the following:
1. Inventing forms of “investment income” which the local government does not consider to be income and thus does not tax (hello PFIC & phantom gains!), and which are absolutely impossible for any ordinary person to even calculate how much alleged “income” there is thus virtually mandating that you use an accountant
2. Inventing new taxes to which existing FTCs and tax agreements don’t apply (payroll tax, the Obamacare investment tax) and refusing to sign new agreements to plug the gaps (34 out of 36 countries in the Americas, 12 out of 13 in Oceania, 46 out of 48 in Asia do not have a Social Security Totalization Agreement)
@Barbara
Didn’t realize only one way would be the appropriate thing……….
Forgive me Patricia Moon but you could have saved yourself time and disappointment by not even bothering with those two jokers in the first place.
I would like to remind everyone here, whatever your political leanings, that FATCA and FBAR and FuD/bar a Hardluckbar etc. etc. were entirely created and hatched in the corrupt and fevered minds of the far left of the DNC. My understanding is that it was, amongst others,Chuck Schumer D/NY, and Charles Rangel D/NY and Carl Levin D/MI who were the principal authors of Fatca, and it was signed into law by none other than Barack Hussein Obama; easily the most hard left president in the history of the United States.
Here’s how I see it politically; the socialist branch of the US government, i.e. the Democrats, sees all revenues as, essentially, theirs, and have nothing but contempt for the idea of private property. If they let you keep any money at all it is only because they know that to do otherwise would lead to bloody revolt. I see income (money) as the ultimate private property. Money earned honestly belongs to the man/woman who worked for it. Think about it; if money was not private property then you would not be allowed to take it to any bank of your choosing, for example, and open a private account. Nor would you “be allowed” to spend or invest it in whatever manner you wished like buying a house, car, stock market etc, etc.
All this to say that once direct income tax is instituted by whatever government in whichever country, at that moment true private property rights are usurped; and it opens the door to incremental and exponential abuse. Fatca, the monster, and all its’ derivatives, are simply the natural evolution of the destruction of private property rights brought on by the passing of the 16th amendment to the US Constitution in 1913 and it have been a toboggan ride to hell ever since…and it’s picking up great speed.
No politician in America really gives a toss about us “expats” and it is therefore pointless to appeal to any of them. It is an exercise in futility and a fool’s errand. If there is one thing I have learned in my thirty-five years living abroad it is that the moment you live outside of the US you are considered persona non grata by any so-called representative. If you call or write your congressman from Germany, Switzerland, France, Italy, Canada or wherever, you might as well say you live on Mars. Hell, it’s hard enough getting a politician to listen to you if you live in the US, let alone some goddam place he’s never heard of.
The only hope I hold onto for the demise of Fatca is the demise of the IRS, and this will only come about with a type of flat tax, or fair tax that replaces the present tax code and is so simple that an IRS (the enforcement arm of the treasury department) will be unnecessary. Otherwise Fatca can be defeated by international revolt by all the countries having entered into an IGA, but I don’t see that happening any time soon either.
My deepest apologies, Patricia, no offense intended. I was worked up by Clinton’s infuriating BS, and absolutely didn’t mean to criticize you, but rather to add to what you said. God, I wish we could edit these posts.
So where do we go from here?
I cannot vote for war. Period. Non negotiable. I want to support this effort but if the only way to do so is, in the process, to support war–I cannot.
Ron Paul was against war and I had great hopes–unfortunately the exact status of things was never made clear–that his son Rand Paul would follow in his father’s footsteps and also be against war.
Most other Republicans seem to favor war.
On the Democratic side Hillary Clinton also seems to favor war based on her vote authorizing the Iraq war.
On the other hand Bernie Sanders seems to oppose war.
@Ginny of Canada
If you feel that mothers are somehow in worthy of support–as you expressed to me awhile back–you must understand that I cannot support a candidate for the American presidency who would support any war that would deprive a mother of her children. I’m sure you can understand this.
From such a perspective the only remaining candidate on the American side seems to be Bernie Sanders. Again–I had high hopes for Rand Paul that he would champion my ideals both for opposing war and for opposing FATCA–but Senator Rand Paul didn’t seem to have the courage of his convictions.
@Dash
I hear you. I thank God I no longer have to make that choice .
@Dash…with respect to “making war” Donald Trump strikes me as someone in the mold of Ronald Reagan, which is to carry a big stick and really avoid using it. The problem of the last twenty years has been the neocons coming to power which has infected both parties.
In this situation, I think one has to ask who are the neocons against? It is clear they are very actively against Trump and speaking against him.
I relinquished so I no longer vote in the USA but if I could, I might support Trump being least likely to take the nation to war.
I also look at politicians and ask; “Will this man/woman want to prove themselves as being Commander in Chief material as in machismo?” I honestly believe at his core, Trump is a deal maker by preference not a confrontational person.
From both an expat and war perspective, I think Clinton is the absolute worse choice of the entire pack and Sanders is the best. But in the event Clinton overtakes Sanders, I think the GOP default position is Trump as most likely to defeat Clinton if at all possible.
So if Sanders defeated Clinton, I would if I could support Sanders being the better wrapped package of poo, but if Clinton is on top, then I would support Trump.
So my candidate preference is; Sanders, Trump, Cruz, Rubio. Outright fear of Clinton and highly concerned over Bush because of neocon influence.
But as things stand right now…..I think Clinton is the next president which means expats lives got worse and more war.
If there were 2 Senators to represent Americans overseas – in the model of the French Parliament that has members of Parliament representing French citizens in various regions of the world; Under CBT and no services to US persons overseas, and taking into account average length of persons overseas which is perhaps decade(s), then the only responsible positions would be to vote against all spending measures and for cuts in taxes.
For me it’s the same old problem, US ex-pats have a diluted vote thereby represent neither a threat nor a benefit to anyone’s campaign so ‘neutralism’ is the way to go for them.
To oppose FATCA offers candidates only the downside of being branded an abettor of ‘tax evaders’ by other politicians. They do this in the knowledge Homelanders are ignorant of FATCA and think FATCA doesn’t affect them.
For the Homelanders, on 1 July 2014 the US Government took away your right to cash out of the US, leave it and not be track by the US Government via the world financial institutions. I describe that has a pretty big deal.
The only redress is the courts not the political system.
Oh yeah, one other thing that should not be forgotten: Clinton was Secretary of State when they started fleecing emigrants for exercising the human right to change nationality.
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2010/06/28/2010-15622/schedule-of-fees-for-consular-services-department-of-state-and-overseas-embassies-and-consulates
The $450 fee was already unusually high for the developed world back then — 4x the average level for high-income countries. Compare to Ireland & Chile which do it for free. Clinton’s the one who laid the groundwork for the current $2350 highway robbery.
I mostly agree with Don — and my preferred response is to sue.
Sue the Governments (Canada, Israel) that help the U.S. enforce place of birth taxation and sue the U.S. for tax laws that force US citizens to give up their citizenship in order to survive — and in so doing violate the U.S. Constitution — and sue the U.S. for those mean-spirited regulations that prevent a humane expatriation..
Rand Paul: He is the only U.S. politician I have encountered who asked, without being prompted, for us to provide him with examples of “harm”. He is not going to be the Republican nominee, but he is still a plaintiff (with me) in the U.S. FATCA lawsuit. His position on privacy rights and on FATCA will not change. He also does not feel that all tax legislation has to be “revenue neutral” and cited Canadian legislation as an example.
Last week Paul asked Republicans Overseas to speak to him about specific legislative changes that might help us. Assuming that he is re-elected as a Senator, I hope that many take him up on this. Perhaps as a Senator he will help and personally, I would like to see Senator Paul introduce residence-based taxation legislation.
But the above is all speculation and my preferred approach is still litigation.
American democrats have moved from the center to the left, now making them socialists. Sanders is extreme left a communist.
Winston Churchill’s quote on socialism 1953 :
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery”.
No hope on FATCA will come from the democrats who have turned into national socialists just like the german Nazi’s were and today’s French socialist gouvernment !
Prosecution and robbery are their only means to earn money and the IRS is their tool.
I might vote for Roque de la Fuente in the Democratic primary. I looked him up and he seems to be socially left-wing, but economically conservative businessman from California whose life has straddled the U.S. and Mexico. He may be a bit litigious, but has no obvious scandals. He doesn’t really have a chance of getting elected, but if Democrats abroad start voting for him, it would send a clear message that on CBT is not just Republicans who want policy change. If this becomes just a “Republican” issue, there will be no stopping the Democrats. I did one of those on-line polls and it said that my natural candidate was Bernie, but I find some of his spending plans too wasteful, aside from some elements of his response.
Really taken aback by how bad some aspects of Clinton’s answer were. Not even Kirsch thinks that past education is a good justification. As for Americans abroad “often” benefitting from U.S. infrastructure, WTF? I don’t know anyone who even comes close to the thirty day limit. And as for “often” benefitting from legal assistance does she thinks we are criminals/idiots who go around routinely getting into trouble abroad or that hardly anywhere outside the U.S. has rule of law? Even on trade policy: nobody I know benefits from this because they all work in services. She obviously spent too much time in the State Department, which is there to represent the interests of the state, certainly not Americans abroad.
On the Republican side, Rand Paul was always a bit of a long-shot, although he is respected. Rubio is the only Republican of the top three in Iowa who is clearly sympathetic and he is also the one who beats both Clinton and Sanders in head to head polls. He also has the best track record of working with other people in Congress and has thirty endorsements. Cruz has no endorsements from other members of the House and Senate and has a bad reputation for undercutting other legislators to make himself look good, not a good starting point for a president. Both Rubio and Cruz are friends of Mike Lee, who has shown considerable interest in this issue. so all is not lost. Given some of his positions, I don’t think Trump would be sympathetic.
2011: The http://RenounceUSCitizenship.wordpress.com blog was started almost 4.5 years ago. In the first year of the blog (I was told) that many were offended by the notion of “renouncing U.S. citizenship”. In the early years, each post was signed with “Renounce and Rejoice”.
The situation for American Citizens in general (most clearly illuminated by the treatment of Americans abroad) has gotten worse and worse and worse. The words of the Democratic candidates (most particularly those of Hilary Clinton – who I am beginning to think is missing part of her brain) make it clear that, there will NO initiatives from the U.S. Government to change the reality of “U.S. Citizenship Abroad”. None.
So, what is that reality? The reality is that there is NO “Emancipation Proclamation” coming.
The reality includes:
– many Americans abroad who relinquished U.S. citizenship under the U.S. laws of the time are NOT having their relinquishments recognized by the State Department – CLN denied!
– the U.S. continues to continues to attempt to extend it’s tax base into other nations through it’s citizenship laws – The USA and only the USA will determine who its citizens are
– the U.S. continues the “hunt” for “accidental Americans” without recognizing that virtually all of them (if they ever felt they were U.S. citizens) “abandoned U.S. citizenship years ago
– the Obama administration continues it’s “Reign of Tax Terrorism” (actually this has been downloaded to the accountants and lawyers) to destroy people’s lives (financial and health)
– many people who believe they are NOT U.S. citizens are now PRETENDING to be U.S. citizens for the sole purpose of formally renouncing U.S. citizenship.
“Whether tis better to pretend that one is a U.S. citizen so that one can renounce, or live with the constant terror of being discovered …”
All of this is a form of terrorism that the United States (the Democratic Party) is inflicting on its citizens (or anybody else they can get to believe is a U.S. citizen) abroad. But, you Homelanders, you just wait. Your time is coming. As JFK famously said: A county that cannot care for its weakest cannot protect it’s strongest (or something to that effect).
The reality is that, as the FATCA “roll out” continues, people all over the world are being accused of being U.S. citizens (along with all that implies).
So, what now? What’s a person who “lost the birth lottery” (sorry Bruce, being born in the USA is not a good thing) to do?
2016: What is clearly evident is that Americans abroad have only two options.
Option 1: Return to the Homeland – which most will not want to do.
Option 2: Escape, in whatever form works. So, what are the forms of “Escape”?
A. You can renounce U.S. citizenship. This is option is available only to those who can financially afford it (some can’t pay the $2350 fee – even though renouncing U.S. citizenship is the best investment money can buy). Although it is dangerous to renounce U.S. citizenship without considering the S. 877A IRC tax implications – “to be clear” (as President FATCA would say) – you can renounce U.S. citizenship without being tax compliant. It will leave a “mess of tax problems” to deal with, but renunciation is possible.
B. Those who are considering renouncing should be mindful of the S. 877A “Exit Tax” which is designed to confiscate: non-U.S. assets (including your pension) which were acquired after you left the United States. So, be careful. Oh and don’t forget the compliance costs (FATCA is the “gift that keeps on giving”).
C. The “Do It Yourself Relinquishment”. The statistics indicate that the vast majority of Americans abroad are NOT U.S. tax compliant (not even knowing that CBT exists). Some non-compliant Americans abroad may know that CBT exists. But, either way, the odds are that these people have simply “abandoned U.S. citizenship.”
Anyway, you need to escape. There is NO way that anybody can live with this kind of oppression, terror and injustice.
Now, I use the word “abandoned U.S. citizenship”.
The 1868 Expatriation Act gives (even Americans) the right to expatriate. So, what is an “expatriation”? Well, according to Justice Hughes in the Perkins case:
“Expatriation is the voluntary renunciation OR abandonment of nationality and allegiance.”
That word “abandonment” sure is interesting (but I will leave that to those who are “wiser than I”).
There are two sides to expatriation:
1. When the Government wants to strip the citizen of his citizenship.
Well, that’s what the S. 349(a) Expatriation Statute in the Immigration and Nationality Act is about. It specifies the conditions under which the Government can (on its own initiative) expatriate the citizen (yes, I understand that the citizen must assent).
But, are the grounds for expatriation in S. 349(a) the only grounds for expatriation? Or, are they the only grounds that the government can use to expatriate the citizen? Good question …
2. Okay, what if the citizen wants to initiate the expatriation. Remember the words of Justice Hughes:
“Expatriation is the voluntary renunciation OR abandonment of nationality and allegiance.”
To put the question simply:
Are there forms of “abandonment” that the citizen can use to expatriate that are not listed in S. 349(a). Or to put it another way:
Are the grounds for expatriation in S. 349(a) the only grounds/circumstances that constitute “abandonment of citizenship”?
Up until now, most of expatriation law has been in the context where people DO want to be U.S. citizens. Well, this was before “The Levin Brothers, President Obama and the Democratic Party Circus”.
Now, U.S. citizens are the ones wanting expatriation. Should the citizens be restricted to the grounds for expatriation in S. 349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act? Remember that the whole context of S. 349(a) is that the Government wants to expatriate the citizen.
Example:
You are a member of private club. Presumably membership is voluntary The club has rules which allow it to kick you out of the club. Should this be interpreted to mean that: the only way that you can leave the club is by using the one of the rules that were specifically designed to “kick you out”?
Perhaps “abandonment of U.S. citizenship” should be interpreted more broadly. It does seem clear that unless “abandonment of U.S. citizenship” is interpreted more broadly that U.S. citizenship is now indeed a modern day form of slavery. Yes, it’s true. A reading of the “History of Slavery” shows that it has taken many forms. Certainly the Clinton Exit Tax – forcing people to give their life savings to the U.S. Government as payment for their freedom – is a form of slavery.
In a past life, I would have ended with:
Renounce and rejoice.
Today I will end with:
Escape and rejoice.
I would have liked to ask Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders the following questions:
As President, would you have the mercy to forgive my ignorance of US tax law seeing as I was five years old when I left your country and had not a cent to take with me?
Would you have the mercy to release me from the fear of crossing the border to visit the land of my birth where, thanks to outdated tax law coupled with your party’s policies, I would now be considered an outlaw?
Would you, by showing me such mercy, enjoy having the benefits of my tourist dollars, which you have not received into your economy over these past five years and will not do so again unless you clear up this mess?
If you haven’t the mercy to do these things, would you have the mercy to allow me to renounce my relationship to your country without obstructions thrown in my way, according to your own law?
Would you have the mercy to return to me the freedom which for nearly six decades I believed was mine?
@Publius
I agree, Marco Rubio is our last chance :
“Marco Rubio, for instance, deserves credit for trying to stop the Obama Administration from coercing American banks into obeying foreign tax law.”
Found in :
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/danieljmitchell/2014/07/06/is-fatca-the-worst-part-of-the-internal-revenue-code-n1859210/page/full
@Muzzled
If you get an answer – the answer would be no.
Don’t focus on asking them questions or understanding the “dead air” between their ears. Focus on doing what you can to end their political careers.
I agree withStephen Kish….
So, I’ve posted here information from an email received this morning. I am Canadian and believe that Prime Minister Trudeau and his cabinet must stand behind his statement *A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian* and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
DA could have saved themselves a lot of trouble by asking the candidates one simple question:
What’s the best lip service you could pay Americans abroad right now?